[HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour?

[Bernadette M. Crumb]

No: HPFGUIDX 37143

This is a resend as my original seems to have vanished into the
distant ether of cyberspace...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at mssm.org>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the
Saviour?


> While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd
like to point out some similarities between the series and
Arthurian *legend* <<not what historians think may be the *real*
story. This has probably been discussed before *sighs* oh well.
>
> Obvious connections:
>

SNIP
>
> 8 - The sorcerer's stone -- the holy grail -- you know what I'm
getting at.

For those persons who think of the Holy Grail as Malory's cup
from the Last Supper, an even closer connection is found when you
find out that Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Gral in PARZIVAL isn't a
cup at all, but a magical stone that grants eternal life and is a
miraculous provider of plenty (the instantly appearing feasts at
Hogwarts ties into this aspect).  The Gral is a Philosopher's
Stone in all but name.  There are a lot of other PARZIVAL
connecctions as well.  To me, Harry is not Arthur; Harry is
Parzival.  My reasoning:

1. Parzival is reared outside of his birthright, kept willfully
in ignorance of it by his mother
_in_order_to_protect_him_from_his_father's_enemies._
Dumbledore's reasons for placing him with the Dursley's probably
had as much to do with protecting him from any remaining DEs who
might be around and wanting to get revenge as it did with
protecting him from the effects of growing up famous.  And
protection could be considered Petunia's reasoning for keeping
Harry in the dark as well... it was wizarding that got Lily and
James killed.  Keeping Harry from that would keep them all "safe"
from the danger Petunia saw in it.)

2. Parzival's got incredible talent as a knight with hardly any
training (more or less "this is a horse, this is a saddle, this
is a lance--you stick it in the bad guy...), winning his very
first battle against the best of any Knight that had ever
appeared at Arthur's court at the time (It wasn't Lancelot, BTW,
but the Red Knight.) Harry is very powerful even when he doesn't
understand what he's doing--His initial defeat of Voldemort when
Harry was a mere toddler is the obvious parallel here.  Harry's
subsequent magical accidents are pretty spectacular compared to
what seems to be implied that other non-Muggle kids do before
they're realized to be wizards and witches.

3. Parzival makes mistakes due to not asking the right questions
at the right time--at the Gral Castle when he doesn't ask
Anfortas about his wound and the Gral procession--condemning
Anfortas to more agony and himself to a period of penitance and
repentance, with ultimate redemption coming from doing the right
thing finally. Harry never seems to go ask Dumbledore the right
questions at the right time, and causes himself and others more
grief in his quest to fulfill his destiny.  But even in GOF we
see he is getting better at asking the right questions of the
right people, even if he hasn't reached perfection in that yet!
Like Parzival, Harry learns from his mistakes.

4. In the end, Parzival heals Anfortas, wins the Gral and becomes
the Gral King.  He becomes ruler of a once corrupted kingdom that
has now reached such perfection that it sends out Gral Knights to
assist other lands and to bring peace and stability to them.
Harry's ultimate quest is to defeat Voldemort, but I also see him
as being the one who will remove the corruption currently found
in the wizarding world.  One way or another, I think Harry will
be behind the downfall of Cornelius Fudge, and that the Ministry
of Magic is going to end up with a thorough housecleaning,
removing its corruption. I can see the renewed MoM cautiously
re-establishing ties with the Muggle world in beneficial ways,
once Harry's quest is complete.


SNIP

> What all of this might mean/some future connections?
>
> 1 - Ron might betray Harry (Lancelot is Arthur's most trusted
lieutenant, betrays him)

I have considered this possibility... I do hope it doesn't happen
though!

>
> 2 - Maybe theory that Dumbledore somehow set up James and
Lily's relationship in order to get Harry (the boy that can
vanquish Voldy) actually holds some water (I'd really hate to
think this).

I don't have a problem with Dumbledore being a beneficient
manipulator of people and events, but I agree, the idea that he
set up James and Lily merely to produce a special son really
disturbs me...   I can't remember which of the legends suggests
that Arthur's parents were merely tools of Merlin and his goals
for the future, but I do recall reading at least one version with
that point to it.  I didn't care for it too much.  And when I
think of the trickery that Merlin did, changing Uther Pendragon's
appearance to that of Ingraine's husband, I shudder to think of
someone else being transformed to fool Lily... (Ugh... I think I
just got an idea for a REALLY dark Snapefic...)

> 3 - :( Harry dies at the end.  Oh, heck, I don't like any of
these theories I'm coming up with.  Maybe I should just stop now.
Although ??!! in legend it is always said that Arthur is supposed
to rise again -- tying into the resurrection theme throughout the
books.

Or, if we go back to the Parzival story, Harry will NOT die, but
will succeed in his quest and live a long life.  Parzival, it is
implied, will live forever at the Gral Castle, as a just ruler.
Not all Arthurian legend has the protagonist die at the end.
Most people are more familiar with the legends that are derived
from Malory's LE MORT D'ARTHUR rather than Wolfram's or Chretien
de Troyes' works, and thus end up with "the world is doomed no
matter what good men do, etc." as the interpretation of Arthur
and his knights.  Parzival's Gral remains on Earth to bless and
provide for mankind, while Malory's Grail is taken up and removed
from the Earth and hope goes with it.  Parzival, although having
majorly screwed up by failing to the one simple thing necessary
to win the Gral the first time around, was able to fix his
mistake and win his quest in the end, after a period of
self-growth and maturing.  Malory's knights, no matter how much
they repent and try to mend their errors, are condemned to never
achieve the Grail, and the one that does is so bloody perfect, he
really can't be considered a representative of mankind at all.

Harry Potter is our representative in the great battle of good
versus evil in the wizarding world.  He's human. He makes
mistakes, and learns from them, and tries his best to do the
right thing.  He isn't perfect, but, like Parzival, shows that
perfection is something that is gradually attained and not
something that one is born into (like Malory's Galahad).  Harry
is the hope of wizards and witches precisely because he is not
some paragon of unearthly virtue.  He can say, "Don't follow
Voldemort.  Don't let evil take over you.  Make the right
choices." and has the best chance of being followed because he
shows that you don't have to be perfect to say, "I will choose
not to do evil today."

If Harry were more like Galahad, I know I'd hate the books.  I
despise the "lily-white soul" characters that are supposed to be
showing us what we should be doing to be successful... because
I'm not like that.  I have my flaws and I try to do my best...
Harry Potter is an example of a flawed person who DOES do his
best, and wins out despite his flaws, overcoming them.  If he can
do that, so can I.


SNIP

> 5 - Someone will trick Harry into trusting them, with adverse
consequences (al la Morgan le Fay).

Well, we've seen that already, in GOF... The fake Moody... Harry
trusted him, and look what happened!

SNIP

> 7 - Umm..I have to go eat now.

LOL!  I know the feeling.  I think you have brought up a lot of
good points.  As a student of medieval literature, I look for
Arthurian (and even non-Arthurian medieval) connections in the
more modern stuff I read and enjoy.  Harry Potter has been a joy
for me because it lends itself to this sort of interpretation so
well.  I just hope that my exhaustion after a weekend of chasing
five kids hasn't made it too incoherent!

And now I had better get off of this enjoyable hobby horse of
mine, and back to the Comm Theory homework I should have been
doing...

Bernadette

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value
to survival."
-- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963).