Sunday, November 4, 2007
Hawker's Sangraal: Arthur as Quester
In the texts of my time, the grail was an elusive but uplifting object. Now that we come to the accounts of Tennyson and Hawker, the grail and specifically the quest for the grail is envisioned in a negative light. Why is that? And what does Arthur's involvement (or lack of it) in the quest have to do with this negativity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is already known that I call out the one who will win the grail. Hawkers recount of possible events seems to lead down a path of vanity. It is no longer about chivalry, but of legacy and worship. What is Arthur leaving behind? He has no children that are pure. He has only his name. Arthur makes this clear by saying" I have no son, or daughter of my loins, To breathe, 'mid future men, their father's name: My blood will perish when these veins are dry;......They brought the Sangraal back by his command they touched these rugged rocks with hues of God:' So shall my name have worship, and my land" It seems that there is no mention of the wasteland and the King to cure from the grail. It only mention the grail links God with a a lonely land, not a wounded king. It seems there is no pure purpose for finding the grail.
Sir Galahad has finally won the grail and when he shows the grail it clears the darkness that has encased the land. This tale gives an image that is consistent, at least in my mind, of the middle ages; Dark, filled with war and lust for power. It is odd to have a tale like this entwined with King Arthur.
Post a Comment