I've been puzzling over Galahad's lineage. On Grail 33 Bors is convinced Galahad is the son of "the Fisher King's beautiful daughter." This is reinforced by Galahad's brief mention of his relationship to the Fisher King on Grail 37: "'...my uncle, King Pelles, and my grandsire, the Rich Fisher King.'" Again on Grail 39 Gwenivere is convinced that Galahad is "the son born to Lancelot by the daughter of the Rich Fisher King." All of this becomes very complex, though, when on Grail 46 Galahad convinces "the queen that he [is] the son of Lancelot and of King Pelles' daughter." Wait. I thought Pelles was his uncle. And his grandfather isn't Pelles, but the Rich Fisher King, who, if we give any credence to Grail 37, is the father of Pelles. Somewhere the two have become conflated. And I've become confused. Has anyone else?
This is all the more complex when one considers Galahad's relationship to Joseph of Arimathea. Grail 37 alludes to Galahad as "he who stems from the noble house of King David and the lineage of Joseph of Arimathea," but Grail 60 mentions Galahad as "the last of Nascien's line." Curious. Because Nascien and Joseph aren't related. Nascien is brother to Mordrain (Evalach of Sarras, post-his-baptism), and according to Grail 58-59 Joseph is simply the Christian who happened into Sarras and proclaimed the evangelion. In other words, Joseph and his son Josephus aren't blood relatives of Galahad.
So there are a couple of stunted branches in Galahad's family tree. Anyone have any idea how these could be ironed out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am very confused as well. I had to read that part over again to make sure I read it correctly. But I'm not sure if we can iron them out completely. There are holes all over the place concerning Arthur, his Knights and their related stories. I think part of the confusion comes from which legends are determined to either be the first, the truth, or merely a work of fiction. Since these stories were most likely passed down in the oral tradition before they were written down there are bound to be discrepancies. That doesn't make it any less confusing. I hope we do get into some detail concerning this tomorrow in class because I just can seem to wrap my head around it either. Especially since not only to the discrepancies occur from story to story the happen within the same story as we have found out with this reading.
ReplyDeleteGiven the prophetic machismo with which Josephus and company (the new Christians) demonstrate in this tale, the prophecy that Galahad is of the line of Nascien may be a literary device to cast doubt upon his lineage, rather being simply being contradictory. How often have we seen Gawain getting the crap end of the stick because someone grieving for a lost kin claims he is a murderer rather than a just and noble knight? I'm not willing to go to the wall for this, but it could be intentional.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Mike that these blood relations were more of a literary device than an attempt to put together a coherent story/bloodline. We've seen a lot of confusion about uncles/nephews/cousins in the texts we've already read this semester, and the (Arthurian) sources from which this text drew may not all have agreed on these relationships. Still, I agree that it's weird and disorienting at times.
ReplyDeleteThis may not satisfy anybody, but Pelles is indeed confused with the Rich Fisher King on a couple of occasions. The Index of Names in the Old French edition of the text simply states, without further explanation, that Pellés is Galahad's uncle and distinct from the Fisher King but ALSO that he is "confondu avec le Roi Pêcheur et grand-père de Galaad," "confused with the Fisher King and [therefore taken as] grandfather of Galahad". Things get worse in later texts when it's not clear if Perceval's father is also Pelles or another king named Pellehen--you can see the source of the confusion in the profusion of unfamiliar names.
ReplyDeleteAs for Seraphe/Nascien: he is Evalach/Mordrain's brother-in-LAW, not his natural brother.
As for descent from Joseph of Arimathea: according to The History of the Holy Grail (written as a prequel to The Quest of the Holy Grail), *Gawain* is "descended through the generations directly from Joseph of Arimathea" (tr. Carol Chase). Except the same text gives his most distant relative in Joseph's line as one Peter, identified generically as a "relative" or more specifically as a "cousin" of Josephus--not what we would consider a direct relative at all.
(Similarly, the History of the Holy Grail relates how Josephus's brother Galahad--the original Galahad, as it were--is the direct descendant of Yvain. In this case, the line of descent is direct enough, and if we understand "the lineage of Joseph of Arimathea" broadly enough it includes Yvain, too!)