Talk:Holy Grail

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Brown and Baigent did not originate allegation of pun on Sang real and San Grael

They actually got this from an earlier edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia though their sources for that assertion aren't clear at all either.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No the English did not originate idea that Joseph of Arimethea brought Grail to England.

The French did. This is skepticism in overdrive.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Weaseloid.

Actually, the Grail figured heavily mainly in French devotional writing prior to being incorporated into Arthurian legends, and it was incorporated into Arthurian legend by the French poet Chrétien de Troyes, and the notion that J of A brought the Grail to England first appears in a French medieval poem called Joseph d’Arimathie Robert de Boron. It was also French who incorporated the sword Excalibur into Arthurian legend as well. Although the earliest extensive tellings of the Arthur stories were British (mainly Geoffrey of Monmouth) generally, during the 12th and 13th centuries, the Arthurian legends were being developed more extensively (and generally circulating more widely) in France and Germany more than in England.

Other French and German writers from the Middle Ages who developed the Arthurian myth include Renaud de Beaujeu, Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and Wolfram von Eschenbach, and the anonymous French author of Roman de Fergus. There are over a dozen others. See the Wikipedia category Category:Writers of Arthurian Literature in which French authors figure the most prominently. (The Wikipedia category seems to exclude modern authors like T.H. White and Marion Zimmer Bradley.)

Later back in England, there was a revival of interest in Arthurian stories around the time that Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur, who incorporated a lot of material from earlier French and German sources but even that revival was short-lived until the Romantic revival in the 19th century, when Arthur became a fairly permanent fixture in the landscape of popular myth. Naturally, Malory also has the Grail brought to England by Joseph of Arimithea.

About a century before Malory, starting in the 14th century the monks at Glastonbury England claimed their abbey was founded by J of A, and this was put to powerful political use by the English. It formed a sacred parallel to the stories of Brutus settling England. They now claimed kings going back to Troy and bishops going back to Christ. At church councils, English bishops claimed precedence ever French and Spanish due to the Joseph business. Yes, it was a convenient fiction for the English. But they didn't invent it!!--WickerGuy (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's wp:Kyot the Provençal? Without any sources other than Eschenbach himself, Wikipedia says Kyot was "the French poet who supplied Wolfram von Eschenbach with the source for his poetic epic Parzival... this identification has proven unsatisfactory. ... most scholars believe Kyot was an invention, and that Wolfram's true sources were Chrétien de Troyes' Perceval, the Story of the Grail and his own abundant creativity.."

Wow, that sure clears matters up. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 04:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also the issue that even the "British" elements of the Arthurian story are largely Celtic, not Anglo-Saxon, so the earlier version that said "the English made most of this stuff up" is even more problematic.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, which doesn't even have an article on Flegetanis, says he was Muslim, while this source says he was Jewish. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 05:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That book appears to be one of many pseudo-historical sources about the Grail. It is a popular subject for pseudo-historians and/or fringe historians. In the former camp, I would put folks who make many obvious gaffes about Western history. In the latter, those who just make unconvincing arguments.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that, and by that standard, both criteria would apply to Wikipedia's article on Kyot. The obvious gaffe being Eschenbach as the reference for Eschenbach not knowing what he's talking about, which is pretty much an unconvincing argument. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue seems to me is that the Wikipedia article, simply has no sources at all. However, it doesn't cite Eschenbach in the way you state. It simply says "Some scholars have taken this to mean that Wolfram had faced criticism for his story's departures from Chrétien de Troyes, and had created a pseudo-source with a back story that would silence and mock slow-witted critics while amusing those who saw through it." But this violates WP's WEASEL policy, as it does not say who these scholars were. The WP article seems to imply Flegetanis is also a fictive invention of Wolfram. I suspect the WP article may be reliable, just improperly cited. We need to know WHO exactly claims that Kyot and Flegetanis are fictional characters. This is probably discussed in the introduction and/or preface to various editions of Wolfram's Parzival possibly even the Penguin edition cited at the bottom. Will investigate after tax day.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)