u/Wild_Conflict_3429

I have taken the liberty of machine-translating Sapkowski's 1995 essay on The World of King Arthur. DeepL is a godsend.

It entails a breakdown of Arthurian legend, detailing its conceptions, prominent contributors throughout history and contemporary authors, the history of the British Isles, and the circumstances surrounding Arthurian Legend's construction, from entertainment purposes by poets to propaganda purposes by institutions.

It also contains Sapkowski's ideals for Arthurian Legend, and for the eagle-eyed and analyzers, there is a lot of information to glean from the essay when reading The Witcher and even The Hussite Trilogy. Sapkowski is very opinionated in this Essay, much like his Pirog essay.

Now, translating it by machine does mean that there will be slight errors, such as a sentence not continuing over perfectly from one page to the next, but I do believe as a whole, it is very accurate. Certain translated segments could convey Sapkowski's sarcasm and criticism better, but for those who read through it, I believe it gets the point across.

I'm posting this due to some people believing Sapkowski randomly inserted and went all-in on Arthurian Legend at the end in The Lady of the Lake, when it was actually the main driver in Sapkowski writing The Witcher.

I hope you all enjoy! Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Part 1 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 1

Part 2 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 2

I have taken the liberty of machine-translating Sapkowski's 1995 essay on The World of King Arthur. DeepL is a godsend.

It entails a breakdown of Arthurian legend, detailing its conceptions, prominent contributors throughout history and contemporary authors, the history of the British Isles, and the circumstances surrounding Arthurian Legend's construction, from entertainment purposes by poets to propaganda purposes by institutions.

It also contains Sapkowski's ideals for Arthurian Legend, and for the eagle-eyed and analyzers, there is a lot of information to glean from the essay when reading The Witcher and even The Hussite Trilogy. Sapkowski is very opinionated in this Essay, much like his Pirog essay.

Now, translating it by machine does mean that there will be slight errors, such as a sentence not continuing over perfectly from one page to the next, but I do believe as a whole, it is very accurate. Certain translated segments could convey Sapkowski's sarcasm and criticism better, but for those who read through it, I believe it gets the point across.

I'm posting this due to some people believing Sapkowski randomly inserted and went all-in on Arthurian Legend at the end in The Lady of the Lake, when it was actually the main driver in Sapkowski writing The Witcher.

I hope you all enjoy! Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Part 1 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 1

Part 2 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 2

Sapkowski’s Subversion of the Grail Myth

To truly appreciate Andrzej Sapkowski’s conclusion to The Witcher saga, one must examine the fate of Ciri. Her final interactions with the Arthurian knight Galahad serve as the structural culmination of Sapkowski’s decades-long critique of the Grail myth. By reclaiming the legend from Christian asceticism and returning it to its humanistic, Celtic pagan roots, Sapkowski uses the Ciri-Galahad dynamic to definitively answer his central thematic plot.

Sapkowski’s authorial intent is steeped in neopaganism and humanism.

>Yes. Even the term "agnostic" is too weak in relation to me. My worldview is not agnosticism, atheism, or secularism. It is pure paganism. Truly, I am a pagan, and that in the textbook sense of the word.

Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

He has long lamented how the original Celtic mysteries were overtaken and weaponized. In his view, the Grail was inherently pagan, specifically, a symbol of the Great Goddess, often represented as a cauldron. However, this myth was systematically hijacked by the Church to promote an agenda of abstinence, chastity, and holy crusades.

Sapkowski highlights this ecclesiastical manipulation in his essay, The World of King Arthur:

>The second aim of the ecclesiastical version was as follows: it was necessary to rein in chivalry and its ideals {...} he was to wait in peace and pious contemplation for the crowning moment of his life {…} in the form, for example, of a call to a crusade {...} It must be admitted that the Church acted shrewdly – it did not excommunicate the legend, nor did it thunder from the pulpit. Instead, it created and circulated its own version of the myth – one powerful and appealing enough to the public to supplant the previous ones.

He notes how the Vulgate Monks' version ultimately endured over more humanistic interpretations, such as Wolfram von Eschenbach's.

>Indeed, whilst I appreciate the intentions, I prefer the humanism of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Terry Gilliam to the idiosyncrasies of embittered Cistercian scribes and Bernard of Clairvaux

At his core, Andrzej Sapkowski is a romantic, and a recurring theme in his writing is a direct critique of the church's institutionalised misogyny. Examining the Arthurian Vulgate Cycle, he explicitly calls out the patriarchal, woman-hating views perpetuated by religious figures. He points to the stark sexism embedded in the mythos, such as the hermit Nacien declaring it "blasphemy and a mortal sin" for women to seek the Holy Grail, condemning them as inherently "impure" daughters of Eve and "vile creatures" beyond the salvation of confession.

Sapkowski highlights how this clerical narrative translates into a deeply cynical message from the vulgate monks: that it is better for a man to selfishly "'live it up in style'" and "have some fun" rather than devote himself to a woman whom the church deems "unworthy of such adoration." Sapkowski vehemently rejects this rhetoric, countering their historical dismissal with his own profound romanticism. By declaring, “I believe the Grail is a woman,” he completely subverts the church's narrative. For Sapkowski, the ultimate moral of the story is not excluding women from the divine, but realizing that finding, understanding, and winning over a woman is itself a sacred quest "worth devoting a great deal of time and effort," elevating them to a status of ultimate reverence.

The Church’s cultural theft culminated in a dark historical irony: the Christianised Grail was eventually used as a symbolic weapon against the very people who created it.

>For it so happened that, nearly eight hundred years after the creation of the Vulgate Cycle, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler attempted to adapt the myth of Arthur {...} to the ideology and code of his black knights of the SS. {...} The miraculous vessel from the legend of King Arthur was to serve the brown-skinned heirs of the Nibelungs and the ‘Aryan’ chivalric tradition as a Wunderwaffe against ‘perfidious Albion’! The Grail was thus to be used as a weapon against the Celts... The Celts, who invented the Grail. The source, prototype and archetype of the Grail {...} are quite clearly legendary Celtic artefacts. In most cases – cauldrons

In Sapkowski's work, Ciri is the Grail. She is the Woman, and she is the Goddess. He mentions this in his essay as well as in a 2015 interview with Sugarpulp MAGAZINE, Sapkowski explicitly compared Ciri's role in the narrative to the Arthurian relic:

>A girl promised by fate and destiny, the adopted daughter of a sterile Witcher and an equally sterile Witch who changes both their lives, becomes a ‘damsel in distress,’ must be found (like the Grail) and saved... a worthy story, don't you think?

This aligns perfectly with his thesis in his Arthurian essay, where he strips away the chalice imagery and returns the Grail to its feminine, divine roots:

>The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be

The Structural Subversion of Galahad

To properly deconstruct the Church’s propaganda, Sapkowski needed to subvert its ultimate poster boy: Galahad. In the original Vulgate Cycle, Galahad was entirely created by Cistercian monks to serve as a Christ-like figure—a sinless, chaste knight who represented the "one true path" of the Church. Yet, Sapkowski calls out the hypocrisy of these scribes, noting that their texts were surprisingly saturated with repressed eroticism:

>Interestingly, of all the versions of the legend, the Vulgate is the most explicit and literal when it comes to matters of carnal love. The work simply oozes with sex and eroticism. {...} Undoubtedly, this stems from the same source as the whole witch-hunt against sex unleashed by the Church – from the irrepressible carnal desires burning within the pious brothers and sisters of religious orders, who had been driven mad by asceticism and celibacy. Or perhaps the pious monks were aware that the goal they wished to achieve required… some titillating content?

Sapkowski highlights that to enforce this anti-romantic worldview, the Church needed a new kind of hero, so the Cistercian monks invented Galahad. In Sapkowski’s essay, the authors of the Vulgate Cycle explicitly engineered Galahad to be the Church’s walking symbol, directly mirroring the strict dogma of the Fourth Lateran Council: that there is only one true faith and one Church.

Because there is only one Church, the monks dictated that there could only be one path to salvation, meaning there could only be one Galahad for one Grail. To push this uncompromising, singular narrative, the Church sidelined traditional heroes like Perceval and condemned earthly, romantic knights like Lancelot as sinners.

Galahad was created to be the untouchable, hyper-pure antithesis of Camelot and its Knights; he represents the death of courtly love (amour courtois) and the rejection of the temporal world, especially the "impure" women the Church so deeply despised. By having this solitary, weaponised symbol claim the Grail and immediately depart from the mortal realm, the Church's message was clear: earthly chivalry and romance are worthless, and salvation belongs exclusively to their strict, singular dogma.

However, he strips away the divine infallibility, transforming him from an ascendant Monk-Knight into a very real, hormonal nineteen-year-old boy in Lady of the Lake.

>The knight, after all, was only nineteen years old. He was very bold and very imprudent. He was famous for the first and known for the second
Lady of the Lake, p. 2

Sapkowski is highly protective of Galahad as a character, even defending him against historical misinterpretations (such as Dante mistaking Galehot for Galahad as a romantic procurer). Yet, Sapkowski recognizes that the Vulgate Galahad was created for a restrictive political purpose:

>However, as has already been said, the monks introduce into the narrative a character who had never appeared anywhere before – their pure invention – Galahad. {...} There is only one path: the path of Galahad. And there is only one Grail. {...} Having attained the Highest Goal, Galahad, together with the miraculous vessel, departs from this sinful vale for ever. {...} Only Bors returns to Camelot, to convey to Arthur the message of the Cistercians and the Vulgate: with the Grail, hope has departed

A Grounded Romance

It is impossible to fully grasp Sapkowski’s humanistic vision without recognising how he rewrites Galahad’s ending. In the original myth, upon finding the Grail, Galahad ascends to Heaven, abandoning the mortal plane. In The Lady of the Lake, Galahad meets Ciri, the true Grail, and is profoundly grounded by her humanity.

Sapkowski firmly believes in the dominance of the feminine element in nature, a dynamic reflected in Ciri and Galahad's budding relationship. Ciri is undeniably the dominant force in their interaction, taking charge of their narrative in a way that directly challenges the "male (Church’s) fear" of the Goddess.

>In my work, however, I try to show that a woman really dominates in nature, but not because of her social role, but only because of the organism that nature has endowed her with. {...} Man is a much weaker creature in nature
Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

>

Rather than swearing off the world for a holy crusade, Galahad finds himself utterly captivated by a mortal girl. He offers her pledges and a foot massage, attempting to win her over. Ciri, in turn, entertains the prospect of human love. The chaste crusade is traded for the deeply earthly promise of a "carpet of moss under a filbert bush."

>They say …’ he (Galahad) blushed and stammered. ‘They say that when fairies meet young men, they lead them to Elfland and there … Beneath a filbert bush, on a carpet of moss, they order them to render-
Lady of the Lake, p. 9

>What’s happening to me? She (Ciri) thought. What’s happening to me? {...} A carpet of moss, she thought, suppressing a giggle. Under a filbert bush. With me playing the fairy. Well, well
Lady of the Lake, p. 480

Their physical and emotional union is the final nail in the coffin for the monks' ascetic tale. When they leave together, they are bound as equals. The Grail does not ascend to Heaven to leave Camelot in ruin; instead, the Grail escapes with Galahad into the Arthurian realm.

>Will you ride with me to Camelot?’ She held out her hand. And he held out his. They joined hands, riding side by side. {...} They rode straight into the setting sun. {...} That was all behind them. And before them was everything

Sapkowski believes Arthurian legend is the basis for all fantasy, so before Ciri and Galahad were literally Everything. From his infamous essay “Piróg, or There's No Gold in the Gray Mountains”

>The Arthurian myth is eternally alive among the Anglo-Saxons; it is strongly rooted in culture with its archetype. And that's why archetype; the archetype of all fantasy works is a legend about King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table

This points to a reimagining of Camelot itself. Sapkowski suggests an escape to an idealised, communal, Celtic haven, a stark contrast to the rigid feudalism and religious dogma that eventually destroyed the Arthurian myth.

>A myth that arose at a time when the world of the British Celts was already crumbling to rubble under the blows of foreign invaders. {...} An unattainable Celtic ideal. Well, little remains of the Celts. But the ideal remains

Premeditated Climax: Something Ends, Something Begins

This triumphant, humanistic subversion was not a last-minute addition; it was Sapkowski’s premeditated climax from the very beginning. The 1992 non-canon short story, Something Ends, Something Begins, serves as irrefutable proof of his long-term vision. As Sapkowski himself noted in the preface of SESB:

>This is irrefutable proof that the ‘Witcher saga’ was created according to a precise plan and, contrary to rumours, was not written chaotically like a role-playing game and ended when the author got bored

In this early text, the romantic framing of Ciri and Galahad is blatant. Galahad appears as an awestruck youth, eager to serve his "beautiful and brave maiden," while the surrounding characters, Yennefer, Triss, and Geralt, openly acknowledge the budding courtship:

>Knowing life, I believe he desires to become your knight, Ciri,’ said Triss Merigold

>Galahad... Galahad is coming with me. I don't know why. But I can't stop him, can I?

>Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman

Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman

The thematic core of this dynamic is summarized in Galahad's conversation with Dandelion. Distraught over failing to find the literal (note: Fabricated by the Church), ecclesiastical chalice, Galahad questions the meaning of his quest. It takes a poet to dismantle the Church's lie and reveal the pagan, humanistic truth of Sapkowski’s world:

>And the Grail?’ he asked finally. ‘What has become of the Grail? It's something we're searching for... Something that is the most important. Without which life has no meaning. Without which we're incomplete and imperfect.’ The bard pressed his lips and looked at the knight with his famous gaze {...} ‘You fool,’ he replied, ‘you've been sitting next to your Grail for the entire evening

Ultimately, the Galahad-Ciri dynamic is Sapkowski’s masterstroke. He rescues the Grail from the cold, unattainable heights of Christian asceticism and places it exactly where he believes it belongs: in the warm, imperfect, and deeply human embrace of life and love on the earthly plane. His retaliation against the Church.

Sapkowski’s Subversion of the Grail Myth

To truly appreciate Andrzej Sapkowski’s conclusion to The Witcher saga, one must examine the fate of Ciri. Her final interactions with the Arthurian knight Galahad serve as the structural culmination of Sapkowski’s decades-long critique of the Grail myth. By reclaiming the legend from Christian asceticism and returning it to its humanistic, Celtic pagan roots, Sapkowski uses the Ciri-Galahad dynamic to definitively answer his central thematic plot.

Sapkowski’s authorial intent is steeped in neopaganism and humanism.

>I noticed long ago that you are quite distrustful towards all experiences of a religious nature.

Yes. Even the term "agnostic" is too weak in relation to me. My worldview is not agnosticism, atheism, or secularism. It is pure paganism. Truly, I am a pagan, and that in the textbook sense of the word.
Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

He has long lamented how the original Celtic mysteries were overtaken and weaponized. In his view, the Grail was inherently pagan, specifically, a symbol of the Great Goddess, often represented as a cauldron. However, this myth was systematically hijacked by the Church to promote an agenda of abstinence, chastity, and holy crusades.

Sapkowski highlights this ecclesiastical manipulation in his essay, The World of King Arthur:

>The second aim of the ecclesiastical version was as follows: it was necessary to rein in chivalry and its ideals {...} he was to wait in peace and pious contemplation for the crowning moment of his life {…} in the form, for example, of a call to a crusade {...} It must be admitted that the Church acted shrewdly – it did not excommunicate the legend, nor did it thunder from the pulpit. Instead, it created and circulated its own version of the myth – one powerful and appealing enough to the public to supplant the previous ones.

He notes how the Vulgate Monks' version ultimately endured over more humanistic interpretations, such as Wolfram von Eschenbach's.

>Indeed, whilst I appreciate the intentions, I prefer the humanism of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Terry Gilliam to the idiosyncrasies of embittered Cistercian scribes and Bernard of Clairvaux

At his core, Andrzej Sapkowski is a romantic, and a recurring theme in his writing is a direct critique of the church's institutionalised misogyny. Examining the Arthurian Vulgate Cycle, he explicitly calls out the patriarchal, woman-hating views perpetuated by religious figures. He points to the stark sexism embedded in the mythos, such as the hermit Nacien declaring it "blasphemy and a mortal sin" for women to seek the Holy Grail, condemning them as inherently "impure" daughters of Eve and "vile creatures" beyond the salvation of confession.

Sapkowski highlights how this clerical narrative translates into a deeply cynical message from the vulgate monks: that it is better for a man to selfishly "'live it up in style'" and "have some fun" rather than devote himself to a woman whom the church deems "unworthy of such adoration." Sapkowski vehemently rejects this rhetoric, countering their historical dismissal with his own profound romanticism. By declaring, “I believe the Grail is a woman,” he completely subverts the church's narrative. For Sapkowski, the ultimate moral of the story is not excluding women from the divine, but realizing that finding, understanding, and winning over a woman is itself a sacred quest "worth devoting a great deal of time and effort," elevating them to a status of ultimate reverence.

The Church’s cultural theft culminated in a dark historical irony: the Christianised Grail was eventually used as a symbolic weapon against the very people who created it.

>For it so happened that, nearly eight hundred years after the creation of the Vulgate Cycle, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler attempted to adapt the myth of Arthur {...} to the ideology and code of his black knights of the SS. {...} The miraculous vessel from the legend of King Arthur was to serve the brown-skinned heirs of the Nibelungs and the ‘Aryan’ chivalric tradition as a Wunderwaffe against ‘perfidious Albion’! The Grail was thus to be used as a weapon against the Celts... The Celts, who invented the Grail. The source, prototype and archetype of the Grail {...} are quite clearly legendary Celtic artefacts. In most cases – cauldrons

In Sapkowski's work, Ciri is the Grail. She is the Woman, and she is the Goddess. He mentions this in his essay as well as in a 2015 interview with Sugarpulp MAGAZINE, Sapkowski explicitly compared Ciri's role in the narrative to the Arthurian relic:

>A girl promised by fate and destiny, the adopted daughter of a sterile Witcher and an equally sterile Witch who changes both their lives, becomes a ‘damsel in distress,’ must be found (like the Grail) and saved... a worthy story, don't you think?

This aligns perfectly with his thesis in his Arthurian essay, where he strips away the chalice imagery and returns the Grail to its feminine, divine roots:

>The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be

The Structural Subversion of Galahad

To properly deconstruct the Church’s propaganda, Sapkowski needed to subvert its ultimate poster boy: Galahad. In the original Vulgate Cycle, Galahad was entirely created by Cistercian monks to serve as a Christ-like figure—a sinless, chaste knight who represented the "one true path" of the Church. Yet, Sapkowski calls out the hypocrisy of these scribes, noting that their texts were surprisingly saturated with repressed eroticism:

>Interestingly, of all the versions of the legend, the Vulgate is the most explicit and literal when it comes to matters of carnal love. The work simply oozes with sex and eroticism. {...} Undoubtedly, this stems from the same source as the whole witch-hunt against sex unleashed by the Church – from the irrepressible carnal desires burning within the pious brothers and sisters of religious orders, who had been driven mad by asceticism and celibacy. Or perhaps the pious monks were aware that the goal they wished to achieve required… some titillating content?

Sapkowski highlights that to enforce this anti-romantic worldview, the Church needed a new kind of hero, so the Cistercian monks invented Galahad. In Sapkowski’s essay, the authors of the Vulgate Cycle explicitly engineered Galahad to be the Church’s walking symbol, directly mirroring the strict dogma of the Fourth Lateran Council: that there is only one true faith and one Church.

Because there is only one Church, the monks dictated that there could only be one path to salvation, meaning there could only be one Galahad for one Grail. To push this uncompromising, singular narrative, the Church sidelined traditional heroes like Perceval and condemned earthly, romantic knights like Lancelot as sinners.

Galahad was created to be the untouchable, hyper-pure antithesis of Camelot and its Knights; he represents the death of courtly love (amour courtois) and the rejection of the temporal world, especially the "impure" women the Church so deeply despised. By having this solitary, weaponised symbol claim the Grail and immediately depart from the mortal realm, the Church's message was clear: earthly chivalry and romance are worthless, and salvation belongs exclusively to their strict, singular dogma.

However, he strips away the divine infallibility, transforming him from an ascendant Monk-Knight into a very real, hormonal nineteen-year-old boy in Lady of the Lake.

>The knight, after all, was only nineteen years old. He was very bold and very imprudent. He was famous for the first and known for the second
Lady of the Lake, p. 2

Sapkowski is highly protective of Galahad as a character, even defending him against historical misinterpretations (such as Dante mistaking Galehot for Galahad as a romantic procurer). Yet, Sapkowski recognizes that the Vulgate Galahad was created for a restrictive political purpose:

>However, as has already been said, the monks introduce into the narrative a character who had never appeared anywhere before – their pure invention – Galahad. {...} There is only one path: the path of Galahad. And there is only one Grail. {...} Having attained the Highest Goal, Galahad, together with the miraculous vessel, departs from this sinful vale for ever. {...} Only Bors returns to Camelot, to convey to Arthur the message of the Cistercians and the Vulgate: with the Grail, hope has departed

A Grounded Romance

It is impossible to fully grasp Sapkowski’s humanistic vision without recognising how he rewrites Galahad’s ending. In the original myth, upon finding the Grail, Galahad ascends to Heaven, abandoning the mortal plane. In The Lady of the Lake, Galahad meets Ciri, the true Grail, and is profoundly grounded by her humanity.

Sapkowski firmly believes in the dominance of the feminine element in nature, a dynamic reflected in Ciri and Galahad's budding relationship. Ciri is undeniably the dominant force in their interaction, taking charge of their narrative in a way that directly challenges the "male (Church’s) fear" of the Goddess.

>In my work, however, I try to show that a woman really dominates in nature, but not because of her social role, but only because of the organism that nature has endowed her with. {...} Man is a much weaker creature in nature
Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

>This is, of course, the belated revenge of men and their male god upon the still-menacing Great Goddess. It is the age-old male fear of the feminine element, which naturally dominates the natural world

Rather than swearing off the world for a holy crusade, Galahad finds himself utterly captivated by a mortal girl. He offers her pledges and a foot massage, attempting to win her over. Ciri, in turn, entertains the prospect of human love. The chaste crusade is traded for the deeply earthly promise of a "carpet of moss under a filbert bush."

>They say …’ he (Galahad) blushed and stammered. ‘They say that when fairies meet young men, they lead them to Elfland and there … Beneath a filbert bush, on a carpet of moss, they order them to render-
Lady of the Lake, p. 9

>What’s happening to me? She (Ciri) thought. What’s happening to me? {...} A carpet of moss, she thought, suppressing a giggle. Under a filbert bush. With me playing the fairy. Well, well
Lady of the Lake, p. 480

Their physical and emotional union is the final nail in the coffin for the monks' ascetic tale. When they leave together, they are bound as equals. The Grail does not ascend to Heaven to leave Camelot in ruin; instead, the Grail escapes with Galahad into the Arthurian realm.

>Will you ride with me to Camelot?’ She held out her hand. And he held out his. They joined hands, riding side by side. {...} They rode straight into the setting sun. {...} That was all behind them. And before them was everything

Sapkowski believes Arthurian legend is the basis for all fantasy, so before Ciri and Galahad were literally Everything. From his infamous essay “Piróg, or There's No Gold in the Gray Mountains”

>The Arthurian myth is eternally alive among the Anglo-Saxons; it is strongly rooted in culture with its archetype. And that's why archetype; the archetype of all fantasy works is a legend about King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table

This points to a reimagining of Camelot itself. Sapkowski suggests an escape to an idealised, communal, Celtic haven, a stark contrast to the rigid feudalism and religious dogma that eventually destroyed the Arthurian myth.

>A myth that arose at a time when the world of the British Celts was already crumbling to rubble under the blows of foreign invaders. {...} An unattainable Celtic ideal. Well, little remains of the Celts. But the ideal remains

Premeditated Climax: Something Ends, Something Begins

This triumphant, humanistic subversion was not a last-minute addition; it was Sapkowski’s premeditated climax from the very beginning. The 1992 non-canon short story, Something Ends, Something Begins, serves as irrefutable proof of his long-term vision. As Sapkowski himself noted in the preface of SESB:

>This is irrefutable proof that the ‘Witcher saga’ was created according to a precise plan and, contrary to rumours, was not written chaotically like a role-playing game and ended when the author got bored

In this early text, the romantic framing of Ciri and Galahad is blatant. Galahad appears as an awestruck youth, eager to serve his "beautiful and brave maiden," while the surrounding characters, Yennefer, Triss, and Geralt, openly acknowledge the budding courtship:

>Knowing life, I believe he desires to become your knight, Ciri,’ said Triss Merigold

>Galahad... Galahad is coming with me. I don't know why. But I can't stop him, can I?

Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman

The thematic core of this dynamic is summarized in Galahad's conversation with Dandelion. Distraught over failing to find the literal (note: Fabricated by the Church), ecclesiastical chalice, Galahad questions the meaning of his quest. It takes a poet to dismantle the Church's lie and reveal the pagan, humanistic truth of Sapkowski’s world:

>And the Grail?’ he asked finally. ‘What has become of the Grail? It's something we're searching for... Something that is the most important. Without which life has no meaning. Without which we're incomplete and imperfect.’ The bard pressed his lips and looked at the knight with his famous gaze {...} ‘You fool,’ he replied, ‘you've been sitting next to your Grail for the entire evening

Ultimately, the Galahad-Ciri dynamic is Sapkowski’s masterstroke. He rescues the Grail from the cold, unattainable heights of Christian asceticism and places it exactly where he believes it belongs: in the warm, imperfect, and deeply human embrace of life and love on the earthly plane. His retaliation against the Church.

Hello everyone, I used Sapkowski’s essay The World of King Arthur to break down the Witcher books. I see the entire Witcher saga as his own construction of Arthurian legend, and particularly the Quest for the Grail, based on his own views. This in turn, should help us understand the Witcher books even better.

To understand how these views directly shaped the structure of the books, we must look at the two most popular competing 13th-century traditions of the Grail quest legend that Sapkowski highlights in his essay:

1. The Church Propaganda / Cistercian Monastic Version: A version that reframes the quest for the Grail as a strict devotion to unattainable heavenly attributes.

>Interestingly, of all the versions of the legend, the Vulgate is the most explicit and literal when it comes to matters of carnal love. The work simply oozes with sex and eroticism. [...] Undoubtedly, this stems from the same source as the whole witch-hunt against sex unleashed by the Church – from the irrepressible carnal desires burning within the pious brothers and sisters of religious orders, who had been driven mad by asceticism and celibacy. Or perhaps the pious monks were aware that the goal they wished to achieve required… some titillating content? [...] Instead, it created and circulated its own version of the myth – one powerful and appealing enough to the public to supplant the previous ones.
The world of King Arthur, Andrzej Sapkowski, 1995

2. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s version

>In Wolfram’s version, the Grail is… a stone. Not a bowl, not a chalice, not a cup, not a communion chalice, but a stone. [...] the stone removes from the story its liturgical subtext and connections with the Eucharist. [...] there is no Galahad. There is no ‘chevalier sans peur et sans reproche’ who is born and becomes a knight for one purpose alone (referring to Galahad). There is only Parsifal – and Parsifal is not an ideal. Parsifal, however, wishes to be one and strives towards it. [...]

>Wolfram’s message is this: let us not wait for a revelation or a command from on high; let us not wait for any ‘Deus vult’. Let us seek the Grail within ourselves. For the Grail is nobility, it is love for one’s neighbour, it is the capacity for compassion. [...] Everyone must find their own path. But it is not true that there is only one path. There are many. An infinite number. [...] What matters is humanity. The heart. Indeed, whilst I appreciate the intentions, I prefer the humanism of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Terry Gilliam to the idiosyncrasies of embittered Cistercian scribes and Bernard of Clairvaux..

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

And we know which one Sapkowski liked more. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s version.

>In the final book, Lady of the Lake, characters like Ciri, Nimue, and Condwiramurs serve as the Grail of Galahad, Merlin, and Percival respectively. Condwiramurs in Wolfram’s work is the wife of Percival for reference. They function as the actual, literal manifestations of the Grail for Galahad, Merlin, and Percival respectively within an interconnected multi-world reality. By existing as real, living answers to these men, they embody the core message of Sapkowski’s works, where he argues that the true Grail must be completely stripped of distant, divine dogmatism and returned to compassion and love:

>Parsifal does not depart this world with the Grail; he remains so that now, having attained the highest spiritual value (which, in Wolfram’s work, the Grail never ceases to be), he may enjoy life twofold. Wolfram’s message is this: let us not wait for a revelation or a command from on high; let us not wait for any ‘Deus vult’. Let us seek the Grail within ourselves. For the Grail is nobility, it is love for one’s neighbour, it is the capacity for compassion

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Within this comparative framework, Geralt functionally symbolizes King Arthur, while Yennefer represents Guinevere. Crucially, in original Celtic mythology, Guinevere is far from a passive prize; she represents the sovereign power of the Great Triple Goddess. This is because in the original Welsh legends, Arthur had 3 wives, all having the same name, noted by Sapkowski in the essay.

>In Welsh legends she appears as Gwenhwyfar (White Ghost), although Arthur had three (!) wives with the same name* However, it was Gwenhwyfar, daughter of Orgyrvran, who entered the myth, initially as Wenhaver, Guanhamara, Gvenour or Ganhumara; later, in the French version, as Guenièvre or Guinevere; and in Malory’s original spelling – Gwenyvere, daughter of King Leodegran. [...] Three Gwenhwyfars – three White Phantoms [or White apparitions because In Celtic mythology, the name Gwenhwyfar is often translated as 'White Phantom' or 'White Spirit']. In other words, one: the Great, the White, the Triple. Guinevere from the earliest version of the Arthurian legend is none other than the Great Goddess

>The motif of taking a king’s wife is clearly rooted in the beliefs, customs and very nature of the Celts. During the wedding ceremony (and thereafter), the wife of a Celtic king symbolises the Earth over which the king reigns. Taking his wife is therefore an act that undermines not only the king’s authority

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Yennefer is a subversion of Guinevere because she isn’t helpless like Gwenevere. Rather than occupying the traditional trope of the helpless, passive damsel who exists merely to be abducted and rescued, Yennefer is an active character. She is the one who chooses Geralt repeatedly. The rivals and antagonists who emerge to challenge Geralt’s bond with her, such as Vilgefortz and Istredd, directly mirror Arthurian pretenders like Mordred and Meleagant who sought to disrupt the King's authority by claiming his Queen. She fights off Bonhart who tries to rape her.

>The young hero symbolises summer, rebirth, the surge and blossoming of vital forces, which stand in contrast to the waning, winter-like power of the old king. And the ruler cannot be weak; he cannot be barren, cold or sexually impotent– for he is, after all, wedded to the Earth, the Great Mother, symbolised by the spring queen, who, during the Beltaine mystery, is to be loved – loved physically, erotically

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

The irony of Sapkowski's plot is that Geralt is entirely barren and sterile, yet Yennefer, embodying the Great Mother Goddess archetype, completely rejects the old mythic requirement for a sexually potent consort (The irony is she is sterile too). Instead, she chooses him purely out of human affection, as beautifully illustrated in the short story "Something More, Chapter 3". Her role as a vessel of sovereignty is elevated even further when she receives direct, spiritual approval from the Great Mother Goddess of Skellige, Freya for choosing to be a mother to Ciri.

This subversion highlights how Sapkowski explicitly criticizes the limiting, patriarchal definitions that medieval chroniclers imposed on legendary women. To counteract these deeply entrenched biases, he created Yennefer as a powerful foil, drawing heavy inspiration from Parke Godwin’s novel The Beloved Exile to write her in alignment with the fierce independence of authentic Celtic myth.

>And because – particularly with regard to gender equality and women’s independence – the Middle Ages are still with us, the medieval form of the legend remains the classic one, and the women of the legend are defined accordingly: Guinevere and Isolde are ‘unfaithful’ ,Morgana is an ‘evil witch’, Nimue is an ‘unscrupulous seductress’

>In Arthurian fantasy literature, Guinevere is always present. Marion Zimmer Bradley, as I mentioned, is not particularly fond of the queen; the portrayal in ‘The Mists of Avalon’ is not the most sympathetic. In Robert Nye’s ‘Merlin’, Guinevere is a nymphomaniac with a birdbrain, and to make matters worse, she stutters. A lovely and interesting portrait of the queen, however, is painted by Parke Godwin in his book ‘The Beloved Exile’. The queen is portrayed as a wise woman, strong-willed and of strong character. As such, she is a truer portrayal of a Celtic woman – far truer than later medieval versions, which depict the ladies of the Arthurian myth as weak, ethereal and highly susceptible to sin, fainting from fear or love and helpless without a knight’s aid

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Yennefer also serves as a profound structural parallel to Morgana. Rather than connecting her to themes of doom or static villainy, Sapkowski links Yennefer explicitly to the sea, playing directly on the true etymological roots of Morgana's name (mor meaning sea, rather than death). This water thematic manifests clearly when she travels to Skellige and is physically cast into the sea when escaping the lodge. She gets fished out and hit with an oar by Skelligian women. She is literally born of the sea.

>I think that for all those who have adapted the myth, the appeal of this character (as an antagonist) stemmed from the evocative root ‘mor’ (mors, la morte, death). The same applies to Morgause and Mordred, described below. In Welsh, however, the root ‘mor’ associated with the sea not with death ‘Morgan’ means ‘Born of the Sea’ in Celtic. But the analogy is there – the sea, as we recall symbolises all the forces of evil for the Welsh

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

This mythic connection reaches its emotional peak in the saga's final pages: when Geralt is mortally stabbed by a pitchfork during the pogrom in Rivia, Yennefer cradles his head in her lap, whilst attempting to heal Geralt. This directly mirrors Morgana’s actions on the battlefield of Camlann where Sapkowski notes:

>Interestingly, in the epilogue to the legend, Morgan reconciles with Arthur. When the King dies on the battlefield at Camlann, his sister cradles his head in her lap and speaks tender words to her brother, and she is one of the 4 queens who accompany the King in his final journey

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Just as Morgana survives the final battle to guide King Arthur safely to the shores of Avalon, Yennefer does not truly perish; instead, she departs the mortal realm alongside Geralt.

>There is a theory that women played an enormous role in Celtic society. In many myths (such as that of Cuchulainn), the hero must undergo training under a woman – a sorceress or a warrior. In many legends, it is the privilege of the mother, guardian or priestess to bestow a name upon the boy and present him with a weapon. This is likely linked to the cult of the Triple Great Mother described above, which was deeply rooted among the Celts

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

It is Visenna who names Geralt and it is Yennefer who gets Geralt’s swords. Nenneke and the priestesses at temple of Elander and Sigrdrifa and the priestesses at the temple of Freya on Skellige also reflect the Celtic priestess role.

Something interesting to note is the title of Lady of the Lake being passed around. Ciri was taught by Yennefer. She has a title of Lady of the lake just like Nimue. Ciri is Yennefer’s successor. Nimue is Ciri’s successor. She (and Condwiramurs) helped Ciri get to Stygga castle.

>Four queens – Morgana, the Ruler of North gales (North Wales –could she be a druidess from the Isle of Anglesey?), the Queen of the Barren Lands (Perceval’s aunt) and, indeed, Nimue. So – four. But if that is the case, there must have been a fifth! For to whom did the hand belong that Bedivere sees, the hand that grasps Excalibur as it is cast into the waves? The four queens are with Arthur on the barge; the fifth is underwater with Excalibur. I can see no other explanation – apart from sorcery. It follows that Marion Zimmer Bradley may be right in treating the Lady of the Lake (much like Merlin) as a title, office or druidic function. Thus, the retired druidesses sail off with Arthur to Avalon, leaving a successor in the Lake.

>There were several Ladies of the Lake, as can be inferred from Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur,. The one who gave Arthur his sword and was slain by Balin was called Lile. However, right up until the end of the legend, another Lady of the Lake appears and aids Arthur and his knights. At times, one might infer that this Lady is Nimue, the one who seduced Merlin. In the finale of Le Morte D’Arthur (and in James Archer’s painting of the same title, inspired by Malory’s text), however, Arthur is escorted to Avalon by Nimue, the Lady of the Lake

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

This is wrapped up by Sapkowski himself when he says at the end of the chapter

>Perhaps it will now be easier for readers to understand how I, a humble fantasy author, conceived the sorceress Yennefer, the beloved of the Witcher Geralt. A woman who would not dream of yielding when she has no desire to do so

Cahir could be seen as a mirror to Percival. Both had brothers who died. Both had the chance to obtain the Grail. Cahir at the sack of Cintra. Percival at the Grail Castle. But both are trying to be honourable, noble Knights, and as such Sapkowski gives Cahir a chance to see the Grail once more at Stygga castle and gives his life for Ciri the Grail. Percival, to gets his chance to go with Galahad and Bors, to accompany Galahad to the Grail. Cahir wants to redeem himself, constantly being seen as the Black Knight haunting  Ciri’s dreams  but he had good intentions and a good heart, but his actions were seen in service to Nilfgaard, to Emhyr. And such actions deemed him unsuited for the Grail.

>As the archetype of the righteous, honest simpleton with a pure heart and intentions, longing to become something more, and consequently bringing to that ‘something’ his own simplicity and the great humanism inherent in that simplicity, Perceval Pere-dur rides through world literature like a Don Cossack across the steppe

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Dandelion as a mirror to some of Arthurs closest knights like Gawain and Tristan. Like Gawain appears in every single work devoted to Arthur since the earliest iterations, Dandelion too appears in all books where Geralt is. Like Gawain is ruled out from the beginning of the quest for the Grail, Dandelion too, does not take part in the quest to Stygga Castle. Gawain’s horny nature and entanglements with beautiful ladies rules him out. And Dandelion in Toussaint with Anna rules him out.

And just as Gawain is the one to trigger the quest for the Grail, in the main 5 books, which is the quest for the Grail (Ciri), Sapkowski opens Blood of elves with Dandelion finishing his song to a gathering, meeting rience, saved by Yennefer.

>Of course, Gawain has no right to find the Grail. Gawain is a woodcutter. He is an ‘earthly’ knight – not to say ‘mundane’. Besides, Gawain succumbs to temptation far too often; he finds it particularly hard to resist beautiful ladies (whom Malory calls ‘damosels’– I don’t know about you, but that word makes me laugh until I cry). As an uncontrollable sinner, Gawain – though he is the initiator of the quest for the Grail – loses the chance even to catch a glimpse of the holy vessel; in the myth, he serves as a plot-driven  contrast to the blameless and virtuous Galahad, who remains unmoved by any damsels or temptations

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Yarpen and Zoltan as Bedivere and Lukan. Like Bedivere appears in all versions of Arthurian legend since the earliest iterations, as one of Arthurs closest companions, Yarpen was there since the short stories. It is the Dwarves (helped by Triss) who carry Geralt to the boat, just like Bedivere and Lukan are the last two Knights who carry Arthur away from the battlefield of Camlann. Zoltan is the one to give Geralt the sword, but Bedivere is the one to take it away to throw it into the Lake.

>He casts the sword Excalibur into the waves and watches as the Lady of the Lake’s hand grasps the magical weapon and hides it beneath the water. When, having completed his mission, Bedivere returns to the dying king, all he can see on the horizon is the sail of the boat carrying Arthur towards the Isle of Avalon...

Boreas Munn serves as a direct narrative mirror to Sir Bors of Ganis, with their character arcs following similar paths of pursuing the Grail, testing their morals along the way, and eventual exile:

Both characters spend their arcs tracking the ultimate vessel of their respective worlds: Bors seeking the Holy Grail while resisting demonic illusions, and Boreas pursuing Ciri before narrowly escaping a frozen lake when the "Grail" herself chooses to spare his life

 Each man becomes entangled with the wrong faction during a massive structural war; Bors sides with Lancelot’s rebels against King Arthur, while Boreas allies with the villainous triumvirate of Vilgefortz, Skellen, and Bonhart. However, both undergo a late-stage moral pivot toward redemption. Bors races to aid Arthur against Mordred’s coup, while Boreas defects during the assault on Stygga Castle, guiding Geralt’s Hanza through the stronghold.

 Then, when their respective socio-political landscapes (Peace of Cintra/ Battle of Camlann) crumble, both men permanently abandon their known continents alongside a small band of survivors to seek an entirely new purpose in a distant, uncharted land. Where Bors departs for the Holy Land, Boreas Munn permanently exits the Northern Realms alongside Sigismund Dijkstra and Isengrim Faoiltiarna

>But when news of Mordred’s revolt reaches them, they immediately set out to come to Arthur’s aid. Although they arrive too late, they rout the remnants of the rebels and their Saxon allies. Lionel is killed in these battles. Ector de Maris, Bors and the cousins Blamor and Bleoberis, however, seeing that Camelot and the Round Table had ceased to exist, set out for the Holy Land to fight the Saracens. They all perished there, as befits honourable knights, on Good Friday, without having tasted the Easter meal.

>The Fisher King’s wound has symbolic significance and alludes to Celtic beliefs – the maimed king is incapable of sexual intercourse, and the Earth over which he reigns cannot be fertilised. If the king is not healed, the Earth will die, turning into La Terre Gaste, the Barren Earth. The wounding spear is a phallic symbol, whilst the healing Grail represents the vulva

Little Eye (Essi Daven), as one of the three (reoccuring number here) different characters called Elaine, specifically Elaine of Astolat, falls in unrequited love with Lancelot du lac (who would be Geralt) and dies due to smallpox just like Elaine who dies. Sapkowski remaining truer to the original than in Sapkowski’s own words the kind Tolkien.

>She (Elaine of Astolat) could neither sleep, nor eat, nor drink’; so, as one might easily guess, she died. She had her body, clad in black and covered with a shroud of black brocade, carried all the way to Camelot. When Lancelot saw this, he felt rather faint

>The noble Aragorn cannot return the love of Éowyn, Princess of Rohan, and rightly regards this as one of the most painful blows that can be dealt to a man’s heart. Éowyn, too, seeks death (though in a more Celtic manner – in battle), but the benevolent Tolkien does not allow her to suffer the fate of Elaine of Astolat. The undersigned, in creating the character of the poetess Little Eye (A Little Sacrifice), had no intention of being quite so kind – Little Eye, like Elaine, stood no chance.

The other Elaine, daughter of King Pelles, had a union with Lancelot du lac, causing the birth of the one quite literally created for the Grail, by the Vulgate Monks. The one who would achieve the Grail, Galahad. The one as Sapkowski says:

>Elaine sacrificed her virginity (did she close her eyes and think of England?) because she knew she would give birth to a child of destiny who would outshine not only his famous father, but also Arthur and all the other Knights of the Round Table. And she gave birth – in the manner just described.

Galahad was engineered by the Vulgate monks to be the perfect Christian Knight to obtain the Christian Grail. Elaine sacrificed her virginity to birth the Greatest, most virtuous Knight, with the bloodline of the greatest earthly knight, Lancelot and on his mother’s side, the holy bloodline going back to Joseph of Arimathea. A mirror of Ciri, whose Bloodline was engineered by the sorcerers and previously the Aen Elle when they engineered the Elder blood culminating in Lara Dorren.

>Once, however, both were struck down – with a single lance – by the Saracen Palomides, proving that a list of the best does not settle the matter. Nevertheless, no one ever managed to defeat Lancelot in a fair fight. The exception was Galahad, his son – though Galahad was an exception in every respect. His victory over Lancelot (and Perceval) is symbolic in nature

Galahad is meant to be what the previous Grail Knights (Lancelot and Percival) were not. He is so pure, so righteous, the world itself is not worthy to hold him and so he leaves to heaven with the Grail. Sapkowski reimagines him a perfect Knight to win the Grail (Ciri). 

I theorise Elaine could also mirror Ciri during her stay in Tir na Lia. Whilst in bed with Auberon, she thinks of mistle just like how Sapkowski postulates Elaine thinking of England, whilst the elves are wanting her to give birth to a child of destiny.

Sapkowski then starts defending Galahad from Dante when Dante mixed up the names when describing the one who facilitated the first kiss between Lancelot and Guenevere.

>For this reason, Galeotto (that is, Galahad) entered the Italian language as a synonym for a pimp, a procurer, a vile man. Władysław Kopaliński laments that such a virtuous and righteous knight as Galahad should, thanks to Dante, have been given such a vile and insulting eponym. I hasten to defend Galahad and his good name! Władysław Kopaliński is mistaken! That is not how it happened at all! According to the Vulgate Cycle, it was not Galahad but Galehot (Galehault, Galahaut), known as the Lord of the Far Islands, who brought about the tryst and the first (beautifully described) kiss between Lancelot and Guinevere. {…} And it is Galehot – not Galahad – who is Dante’s Galeotto, and it is he who deserves the eponym. The righteous and pure Galahad, the Conqueror of the Grail, facilitated no – I repeat, no – trysts whatsoever!

Destiny can be changed in Sapkowski’s books. He remarks regarding Morholt’s death by the hand of Tristan:

>Interestingly, it was precisely thanks to this battle that Tristan was knighted as a Knight of the Round Table! For each chair at the Table was magically inscribed with the name of the knight who had the right to sit upon it. After Morholt’s death, his name magically vanished, and Tristan’s name appeared in its place

So, Morholt was the knight destined for the round table but by Tristan’s sword, it changed. And we see this in the forest of Brokilon, where on the Chalice is inscribed:

>The sword of destiny has two edges... You are one of them

What this means for Geralt and Coen as prophesied by Ciri? I theorise Coen was claimed by Destiny in the battle of Brenna, but Geralt, was almost claimed. Ciri and Ihuarraquax changed destiny and as such Geralt survived.

>The episode with Meleagant is also a reference to Celtic mythology – it is another triad, whereby in the Lancelot– Guinevere–Meleagant configuration, Lancelot is the old king whose prowess is challenged – unsuccessfully – by a young pretender. In earlier Welsh legends, which served as the prototype for the above story, Queen Gwenhwyfar’s abductor was an evil giant, and her liberator – and the slayer of the pretender – was King Arthur himself

What Lancelot is to Meleagant, he himself is to Arthur. A Celtic triad. This theme of Celtic triad come up a couple times in Sapkowski’s work. Geralt-Yennefer-Istredd being a prominent one. Geralt also mirrors Arthur, slaying the the evil giant abductor of Guinevere, slaying Vilgefortz, the abductor of Yennefer.

Sapkowski traces the Grail from its Pagan Celtic origin where they had magic cauldrons representing regeneration and abundance, and severed heads for Knowledge and clairvoyance into the future to its Christian story, where Church falsified and repurposed it into their holy Chalice

>first continental discoverer of the Grail was Perceval, created by Chrétien de Troyes. Perceval, in turn, is derived from the mythical Welsh hero Peredur. And in Welsh mythology, Peredur, after long searches and wanderings, found a wondrous and mysterious object, which was… a severed, blood-dripping head on a platter. […] which became an oracle and warned the Britons of enemy invasions. Scholars not only see in this head one of the earliest prototypes of the Grail – it is believed that the ancient Celts were in the habit of mummifying and then venerating severed heads and skulls

Sapkowski, however, reinterprets the Quest for the Grail as not pursuing a religious object, but the Knightly heroes pursuing a woman to love. And this is where he takes a turn from Celtic and Christian objects.

>I prefer – following Parnicki and Dante – to identify the Grail with the true goal of the great endeavour of mythical heroes. I prefer to identify the Grail with Olwen, from whose feet white clovers sprang as she walked. [...] Because I believe the Grail is a woman. To find her and win her over, to understand her, it’s worth devoting a great deal of time and effort. And that is precisely the moral of the story. [...] All the love literature in the world. The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be

If you read this to the end, massive respect. This was one long analysis. Thank you for reading!

Hello everyone, I used Sapkowski’s essay The World of King Arthur to break down the Witcher books. I see the entire Witcher saga as his own construction of Arthurian legend, and particularly the Quest for the Grail, based on his own views. This in turn, should help us understand the Witcher books even better.

To understand how these views directly shaped the structure of the books, we must look at the two most popular competing 13th-century traditions of the Grail quest legend that Sapkowski highlights in his essay:

1. The Church Propaganda / Cistercian Monastic Version: A version that reframes the quest for the Grail as a strict devotion to unattainable heavenly attributes.

>Interestingly, of all the versions of the legend, the Vulgate is the most explicit and literal when it comes to matters of carnal love. The work simply oozes with sex and eroticism. [...] Undoubtedly, this stems from the same source as the whole witch-hunt against sex unleashed by the Church – from the irrepressible carnal desires burning within the pious brothers and sisters of religious orders, who had been driven mad by asceticism and celibacy. Or perhaps the pious monks were aware that the goal they wished to achieve required… some titillating content? [...] Instead, it created and circulated its own version of the myth – one powerful and appealing enough to the public to supplant the previous ones.
The world of King Arthur, Andrzej Sapkowski, 1995

2. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s version

>In Wolfram’s version, the Grail is… a stone. Not a bowl, not a chalice, not a cup, not a communion chalice, but a stone. [...] the stone removes from the story its liturgical subtext and connections with the Eucharist. [...] there is no Galahad. There is no ‘chevalier sans peur et sans reproche’ who is born and becomes a knight for one purpose alone (referring to Galahad). There is only Parsifal – and Parsifal is not an ideal. Parsifal, however, wishes to be one and strives towards it. [...]

>Wolfram’s message is this: let us not wait for a revelation or a command from on high; let us not wait for any ‘Deus vult’. Let us seek the Grail within ourselves. For the Grail is nobility, it is love for one’s neighbour, it is the capacity for compassion. [...] Everyone must find their own path. But it is not true that there is only one path. There are many. An infinite number. [...] What matters is humanity. The heart. Indeed, whilst I appreciate the intentions, I prefer the humanism of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Terry Gilliam to the idiosyncrasies of embittered Cistercian scribes and Bernard of Clairvaux..

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

And we know which one Sapkowski liked more. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s version.

>In the final book, Lady of the Lake, characters like Ciri, Nimue, and Condwiramurs serve as the Grail of Galahad, Merlin, and Percival respectively. Condwiramurs in Wolfram’s work is the wife of Percival for reference. They function as the actual, literal manifestations of the Grail for Galahad, Merlin, and Percival respectively within an interconnected multi-world reality. By existing as real, living answers to these men, they embody the core message of Sapkowski’s works, where he argues that the true Grail must be completely stripped of distant, divine dogmatism and returned to compassion and love:

>Parsifal does not depart this world with the Grail; he remains so that now, having attained the highest spiritual value (which, in Wolfram’s work, the Grail never ceases to be), he may enjoy life twofold. Wolfram’s message is this: let us not wait for a revelation or a command from on high; let us not wait for any ‘Deus vult’. Let us seek the Grail within ourselves. For the Grail is nobility, it is love for one’s neighbour, it is the capacity for compassion

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Within this comparative framework, Geralt functionally symbolizes King Arthur, while Yennefer represents Guinevere. Crucially, in original Celtic mythology, Guinevere is far from a passive prize; she represents the sovereign power of the Great Triple Goddess. This is because in the original Welsh legends, Arthur had 3 wives, all having the same name, noted by Sapkowski in the essay.

>In Welsh legends she appears as Gwenhwyfar (White Ghost), although Arthur had three (!) wives with the same name* However, it was Gwenhwyfar, daughter of Orgyrvran, who entered the myth, initially as Wenhaver, Guanhamara, Gvenour or Ganhumara; later, in the French version, as Guenièvre or Guinevere; and in Malory’s original spelling – Gwenyvere, daughter of King Leodegran. [...] Three Gwenhwyfars – three White Phantoms [or White apparitions because In Celtic mythology, the name Gwenhwyfar is often translated as 'White Phantom' or 'White Spirit']. In other words, one: the Great, the White, the Triple. Guinevere from the earliest version of the Arthurian legend is none other than the Great Goddess

>The motif of taking a king’s wife is clearly rooted in the beliefs, customs and very nature of the Celts. During the wedding ceremony (and thereafter), the wife of a Celtic king symbolises the Earth over which the king reigns. Taking his wife is therefore an act that undermines not only the king’s authority

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Yennefer is a subversion of Guinevere because she isn’t helpless like Gwenevere. Rather than occupying the traditional trope of the helpless, passive damsel who exists merely to be abducted and rescued, Yennefer is an active character. She is the one who chooses Geralt repeatedly. The rivals and antagonists who emerge to challenge Geralt’s bond with her, such as Vilgefortz and Istredd, directly mirror Arthurian pretenders like Mordred and Meleagant who sought to disrupt the King's authority by claiming his Queen. She fights off Bonhart who tries to rape her.

>The young hero symbolises summer, rebirth, the surge and blossoming of vital forces, which stand in contrast to the waning, winter-like power of the old king. And the ruler cannot be weak; he cannot be barren, cold or sexually impotent– for he is, after all, wedded to the Earth, the Great Mother, symbolised by the spring queen, who, during the Beltaine mystery, is to be loved – loved physically, erotically

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

The irony of Sapkowski's plot is that Geralt is entirely barren and sterile, yet Yennefer, embodying the Great Mother Goddess archetype, completely rejects the old mythic requirement for a sexually potent consort (The irony is she is sterile too). Instead, she chooses him purely out of human affection, as beautifully illustrated in the short story "Something More, Chapter 3". Her role as a vessel of sovereignty is elevated even further when she receives direct, spiritual approval from the Great Mother Goddess of Skellige, Freya for choosing to be a mother to Ciri.

This subversion highlights how Sapkowski explicitly criticizes the limiting, patriarchal definitions that medieval chroniclers imposed on legendary women. To counteract these deeply entrenched biases, he created Yennefer as a powerful foil, drawing heavy inspiration from Parke Godwin’s novel The Beloved Exile to write her in alignment with the fierce independence of authentic Celtic myth.

>And because – particularly with regard to gender equality and women’s independence – the Middle Ages are still with us, the medieval form of the legend remains the classic one, and the women of the legend are defined accordingly: Guinevere and Isolde are ‘unfaithful’ ,Morgana is an ‘evil witch’, Nimue is an ‘unscrupulous seductress’

>In Arthurian fantasy literature, Guinevere is always present. Marion Zimmer Bradley, as I mentioned, is not particularly fond of the queen; the portrayal in ‘The Mists of Avalon’ is not the most sympathetic. In Robert Nye’s ‘Merlin’, Guinevere is a nymphomaniac with a birdbrain, and to make matters worse, she stutters. A lovely and interesting portrait of the queen, however, is painted by Parke Godwin in his book ‘The Beloved Exile’. The queen is portrayed as a wise woman, strong-willed and of strong character. As such, she is a truer portrayal of a Celtic woman – far truer than later medieval versions, which depict the ladies of the Arthurian myth as weak, ethereal and highly susceptible to sin, fainting from fear or love and helpless without a knight’s aid

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Yennefer also serves as a profound structural parallel to Morgana. Rather than connecting her to themes of doom or static villainy, Sapkowski links Yennefer explicitly to the sea, playing directly on the true etymological roots of Morgana's name (mor meaning sea, rather than death). This water thematic manifests clearly when she travels to Skellige and is physically cast into the sea when escaping the lodge. She gets fished out and hit with an oar by Skelligian women. She is literally born of the sea.

>I think that for all those who have adapted the myth, the appeal of this character (as an antagonist) stemmed from the evocative root ‘mor’ (mors, la morte, death). The same applies to Morgause and Mordred, described below. In Welsh, however, the root ‘mor’ associated with the sea not with death ‘Morgan’ means ‘Born of the Sea’ in Celtic. But the analogy is there – the sea, as we recall symbolises all the forces of evil for the Welsh

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

This mythic connection reaches its emotional peak in the saga's final pages: when Geralt is mortally stabbed by a pitchfork during the pogrom in Rivia, Yennefer cradles his head in her lap, whilst attempting to heal Geralt. This directly mirrors Morgana’s actions on the battlefield of Camlann where Sapkowski notes:

>Interestingly, in the epilogue to the legend, Morgan reconciles with Arthur. When the King dies on the battlefield at Camlann, his sister cradles his head in her lap and speaks tender words to her brother, and she is one of the 4 queens who accompany the King in his final journey

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Just as Morgana survives the final battle to guide King Arthur safely to the shores of Avalon, Yennefer does not truly perish; instead, she departs the mortal realm alongside Geralt.

>There is a theory that women played an enormous role in Celtic society. In many myths (such as that of Cuchulainn), the hero must undergo training under a woman – a sorceress or a warrior. In many legends, it is the privilege of the mother, guardian or priestess to bestow a name upon the boy and present him with a weapon. This is likely linked to the cult of the Triple Great Mother described above, which was deeply rooted among the Celts

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

It is Visenna who names Geralt and it is Yennefer who gets Geralt’s swords. Nenneke and the priestesses at temple of Elander and Sigrdrifa and the priestesses at the temple of Freya on Skellige also reflect the Celtic priestess role.

Something interesting to note is the title of Lady of the Lake being passed around. Ciri was taught by Yennefer. She has a title of Lady of the lake just like Nimue. Ciri is Yennefer’s successor. Nimue is Ciri’s successor. She (and Condwiramurs) helped Ciri get to Stygga castle.

>Four queens – Morgana, the Ruler of North gales (North Wales –could she be a druidess from the Isle of Anglesey?), the Queen of the Barren Lands (Perceval’s aunt) and, indeed, Nimue. So – four. But if that is the case, there must have been a fifth! For to whom did the hand belong that Bedivere sees, the hand that grasps Excalibur as it is cast into the waves? The four queens are with Arthur on the barge; the fifth is underwater with Excalibur. I can see no other explanation – apart from sorcery. It follows that Marion Zimmer Bradley may be right in treating the Lady of the Lake (much like Merlin) as a title, office or druidic function. Thus, the retired druidesses sail off with Arthur to Avalon, leaving a successor in the Lake.

>There were several Ladies of the Lake, as can be inferred from Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur,. The one who gave Arthur his sword and was slain by Balin was called Lile. However, right up until the end of the legend, another Lady of the Lake appears and aids Arthur and his knights. At times, one might infer that this Lady is Nimue, the one who seduced Merlin. In the finale of Le Morte D’Arthur (and in James Archer’s painting of the same title, inspired by Malory’s text), however, Arthur is escorted to Avalon by Nimue, the Lady of the Lake

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

This is wrapped up by Sapkowski himself when he says at the end of the chapter

>Perhaps it will now be easier for readers to understand how I, a humble fantasy author, conceived the sorceress Yennefer, the beloved of the Witcher Geralt. A woman who would not dream of yielding when she has no desire to do so

Cahir could be seen as a mirror to Percival. Both had brothers who died. Both had the chance to obtain the Grail. Cahir at the sack of Cintra. Percival at the Grail Castle. But both are trying to be honourable, noble Knights, and as such Sapkowski gives Cahir a chance to see the Grail once more at Stygga castle and gives his life for Ciri the Grail. Percival, to gets his chance to go with Galahad and Bors, to accompany Galahad to the Grail. Cahir wants to redeem himself, constantly being seen as the Black Knight haunting  Ciri’s dreams  but he had good intentions and a good heart, but his actions were seen in service to Nilfgaard, to Emhyr. And such actions deemed him unsuited for the Grail.

Cahir also represents other knights, like Garet, youngest brother of Gawain. In Garet’s journey to Camelot and eventual Knighthood, he endures a long, and hard journey to prove himself. Garet works in the kitchens of Camelot waiting for his chance, and Cahir follows Geralt and the Hanza from a distance, waiting for his chance. Garet eventually gets his chance, saves the damsel in the tower, gets married and gets killed by Lancelot, the same man who knighted him, cut down like Bonhart cut down Cahir.

>As the archetype of the righteous, honest simpleton with a pure heart and intentions, longing to become something more, and consequently bringing to that ‘something’ his own simplicity and the great humanism inherent in that simplicity, Perceval Pere-dur rides through world literature like a Don Cossack across the steppe

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

Dandelion as a mirror to some of Arthurs closest knights like Gawain and Tristan. Like Gawain appears in every single work devoted to Arthur since the earliest iterations, Dandelion too appears in all books where Geralt is. Like Gawain is ruled out from the beginning of the quest for the Grail, Dandelion too, does not take part in the quest to Stygga Castle. Gawain’s horny nature and entanglements with beautiful ladies rules him out. And Dandelion in Toussaint with Anna rules him out.

And just as Gawain is the one to trigger the quest for the Grail, in the main 5 books, which is the quest for the Grail (Ciri), Sapkowski opens Blood of elves with Dandelion finishing his song to a gathering, meeting rience, saved by Yennefer. Tristan is a Bard like Dandelion and is to, hunted by a cuckolded Husband, the Duke Raymund for Dandelion and the King Mark for Tristan. Tristan is killed in one telling by King Mark, but Dandelion escapes.

>Of course, Gawain has no right to find the Grail. Gawain is a woodcutter. He is an ‘earthly’ knight – not to say ‘mundane’. Besides, Gawain succumbs to temptation far too often; he finds it particularly hard to resist beautiful ladies (whom Malory calls ‘damosels’– I don’t know about you, but that word makes me laugh until I cry). As an uncontrollable sinner, Gawain – though he is the initiator of the quest for the Grail – loses the chance even to catch a glimpse of the holy vessel; in the myth, he serves as a plot-driven  contrast to the blameless and virtuous Galahad, who remains unmoved by any damsels or temptations

>In Le Morte D’Arthur, Tristan meets a grim end – he is killed by a treacherous stab in the back, dealt by his own uncle, King Mark. At the very moment of this crime, Tristan was busy enchanting Isolde with his harp-playing. A good defence lawyer might therefore have defended Mark by suggesting he acted in the heat of the moment – but we know that it was sheer villainy and a premeditated crime long in the making

>The world of King Arthur, AS, 1995

With the Character Kai, foster brother of Arthur, I think Sapkowski reflected him within the many Nilfgaardian higher ups, mainly Menno Coehorn.

>Kai is endowed with many of the traits of Cuchulainn, a hero dear to the Celts – particularly when it comes to his legendary physical attributes. Kai was capable of staying underwater for nine days and nights without stopping to eat. {...} Kai fell at Camlann, fighting alongside Arthur. Another, and interesting, version can be found in Parke Godwin’s The Beloved Exile: Kai dies much earlier, at the Battle of Badon

Yarpen and Zoltan as Bedivere and Lukan. Like Bedivere appears in all versions of Arthurian legend since the earliest iterations, as one of Arthurs closest companions, Yarpen was there since the short stories. It is the Dwarves (helped by Triss) who carry Geralt to the boat, just like Bedivere and Lukan are the last two Knights who carry Arthur away from the battlefield of Camlann. Zoltan is the one to give Geralt the sword, but Bedivere is the one to take it away to throw it into the Lake.

>He casts the sword Excalibur into the waves and watches as the Lady of the Lake’s hand grasps the magical weapon and hides it beneath the water. When, having completed his mission, Bedivere returns to the dying king, all he can see on the horizon is the sail of the boat carrying Arthur towards the Isle of Avalon...

Milva as Tor. Tor is the bastard son of king Pellinor, sired on a wife of a commoner. The commoner notices Tor’s clearly Knightly attributes and disowns him, taking him to Camelot and telling Arthur to take him. Tor takes his place amongst the round table, doing great many deeds. He is eventually slain by Lancelot during his rescuing of Guenevere. Milva, taught and raised by her Father, gains a strong relationship with him. In her flashback, she forgives her father, being slain on the assault on Stygga Castle. Geralt, as Celtic King Arthur would, accepts her as a fighter.

>In Malory’s day, it was rather unthinkable that a knight with a bastard’s bar in his coat of arms – especially one of such ignoble maternal descent – should be counted amongst the king’s inner circle. The character of Tor alludes to Celtic democracy – the historical Arthur would surely have cared little for the propriety of one’s lineage – the only thing that mattered was whether a warrior was effective in defeating the Saxons and Picts.

Boreas Munn serves as a direct narrative mirror to Sir Bors of Ganis, with their character arcs following similar paths of pursuing the Grail, testing their morals along the way, and eventual exile:

Both characters spend their arcs tracking the ultimate vessel of their respective worlds: Bors seeking the Holy Grail while resisting demonic illusions, and Boreas pursuing Ciri before narrowly escaping a frozen lake when the "Grail" herself chooses to spare his life

 Each man becomes entangled with the wrong faction during a massive structural war; Bors sides with Lancelot’s rebels against King Arthur, while Boreas allies with the villainous triumvirate of Vilgefortz, Skellen, and Bonhart. However, both undergo a late-stage moral pivot toward redemption. Bors races to aid Arthur against Mordred’s coup, while Boreas defects during the assault on Stygga Castle, guiding Geralt’s Hanza through the stronghold.

 Then, when their respective socio-political landscapes (Peace of Cintra/ Battle of Camlann) crumble, both men permanently abandon their known continents alongside a small band of survivors to seek an entirely new purpose in a distant, uncharted land. Where Bors departs for the Holy Land, Boreas Munn permanently exits the Northern Realms alongside Sigismund Dijkstra and Isengrim Faoiltiarna

>But when news of Mordred’s revolt reaches them, they immediately set out to come to Arthur’s aid. Although they arrive too late, they rout the remnants of the rebels and their Saxon allies. Lionel is killed in these battles. Ector de Maris, Bors and the cousins Blamor and Bleoberis, however, seeing that Camelot and the Round Table had ceased to exist, set out for the Holy Land to fight the Saracens. They all perished there, as befits honourable knights, on Good Friday, without having tasted the Easter meal.

>The Fisher King’s wound has symbolic significance and alludes to Celtic beliefs – the maimed king is incapable of sexual intercourse, and the Earth over which he reigns cannot be fertilised. If the king is not healed, the Earth will die, turning into La Terre Gaste, the Barren Earth. The wounding spear is a phallic symbol, whilst the healing Grail represents the vulva

Little Eye (Essi Daven), as one of the three (reoccuring number here) different characters called Elaine, specifically Elaine of Astolat, falls in unrequited love with Lancelot du lac (who would be Geralt) and dies due to smallpox just like Elaine who dies. Sapkowski remaining truer to the original than in Sapkowski’s own words the kind Tolkien.

>She (Elaine of Astolat) could neither sleep, nor eat, nor drink’; so, as one might easily guess, she died. She had her body, clad in black and covered with a shroud of black brocade, carried all the way to Camelot. When Lancelot saw this, he felt rather faint

>The noble Aragorn cannot return the love of Éowyn, Princess of Rohan, and rightly regards this as one of the most painful blows that can be dealt to a man’s heart. Éowyn, too, seeks death (though in a more Celtic manner – in battle), but the benevolent Tolkien does not allow her to suffer the fate of Elaine of Astolat. The undersigned, in creating the character of the poetess Little Eye (A Little Sacrifice), had no intention of being quite so kind – Little Eye, like Elaine, stood no chance.

The other Elaine, daughter of King Pelles, had a union with Lancelot du lac, causing the birth of the one quite literally created for the Grail, by the Vulgate Monks. The one who would achieve the Grail, Galahad. The one as Sapkowski says:

>Elaine sacrificed her virginity (did she close her eyes and think of England?) because she knew she would give birth to a child of destiny who would outshine not only his famous father, but also Arthur and all the other Knights of the Round Table. And she gave birth – in the manner just described.

Galahad was engineered by the Vulgate monks to be the perfect Christian Knight to obtain the Christian Grail. Elaine sacrificed her virginity to birth the Greatest, most virtuous Knight, with the bloodline of the greatest earthly knight, Lancelot and on his mother’s side, the holy bloodline going back to Joseph of Arimathea. A mirror of Ciri, whose Bloodline was engineered by the sorcerers and previously the Aen Elle when they engineered the Elder blood culminating in Lara Dorren.

>Once, however, both were struck down – with a single lance – by the Saracen Palomides, proving that a list of the best does not settle the matter. Nevertheless, no one ever managed to defeat Lancelot in a fair fight. The exception was Galahad, his son – though Galahad was an exception in every respect. His victory over Lancelot (and Perceval) is symbolic in nature

Galahad is meant to be what the previous Grail Knights were not. He is so pure, so righteous, the world itself is not worthy to hold him and so he leaves to heaven with the Grail.

Sapkowski reimagines him a perfect Knight to win the Grail (Ciri). Elaine also mirrors Ciri during her stay in Tir na Lia. Whilst in bed with Auberon, she thinks of mistle just like how Sapkowski postulates Elaine thinking of England, whilst the elves are wanting her to give birth to a child of destiny.

Sapkowski then starts defending Galahad from Dante when Dante mixed up the names when describing the one who facilitated the first kiss between Lancelot and Guenevere.

>For this reason, Galeotto (that is, Galahad) entered the Italian language as a synonym for a pimp, a procurer, a vile man. Władysław Kopaliński laments that such a virtuous and righteous knight as Galahad should, thanks to Dante, have been given such a vile and insulting eponym. I hasten to defend Galahad and his good name! Władysław Kopaliński is mistaken! That is not how it happened at all! According to the Vulgate Cycle, it was not Galahad but Galehot (Galehault, Galahaut), known as the Lord of the Far Islands, who brought about the tryst and the first (beautifully described) kiss between Lancelot and Guinevere. {…} And it is Galehot – not Galahad – who is Dante’s Galeotto, and it is he who deserves the eponym. The righteous and pure Galahad, the Conqueror of the Grail, facilitated no – I repeat, no – trysts whatsoever!

Destiny can be changed in Sapkowski’s books. He remarks regarding Morholt’s death by the hand of Tristan:

>Interestingly, it was precisely thanks to this battle that Tristan was knighted as a Knight of the Round Table! For each chair at the Table was magically inscribed with the name of the knight who had the right to sit upon it. After Morholt’s death, his name magically vanished, and Tristan’s name appeared in its place

So, Morholt was the knight destined for the round table but by Tristan’s sword, it changed. And we see this in the forest of Brokilon, where on the Chalice is inscribed:

>The sword of destiny has two edges... You are one of them

What this means for Geralt and Coen as prophesied by Ciri? I theorise Coen was claimed by Destiny in the battle of Brenna, but Geralt, was almost claimed. Ciri and Ihuarraquax changed destiny and as such Geralt survived.

>The episode with Meleagant is also a reference to Celtic mythology – it is another triad, whereby in the Lancelot– Guinevere–Meleagant configuration, Lancelot is the old king whose prowess is challenged – unsuccessfully – by a young pretender. In earlier Welsh legends, which served as the prototype for the above story, Queen Gwenhwyfar’s abductor was an evil giant, and her liberator – and the slayer of the pretender – was King Arthur himself

What Lancelot is to Meleagant, he himself is to Arthur. A Celtic triad. This theme of Celtic triad come up a couple times in Sapkowski’s work. Geralt-Yennefer-Istredd being a prominent one. Geralt also mirrors Arthur, slaying the abductor of Guinevere, slaying Vilgefortz, the abductor of Yennefer.

Sapkowski traces the Grail from its Pagan Celtic origin where they had magic cauldrons representing regeneration and abundance, and severed heads for Knowledge and clairvoyance into the future to its Christian story, where Church falsified and repurposed it into their holy Chalice

>first continental discoverer of the Grail was Perceval, created by Chrétien de Troyes. Perceval, in turn, is derived from the mythical Welsh hero Peredur. And in Welsh mythology, Peredur, after long searches and wanderings, found a wondrous and mysterious object, which was… a severed, blood-dripping head on a platter. […] which became an oracle and warned the Britons of enemy invasions. Scholars not only see in this head one of the earliest prototypes of the Grail – it is believed that the ancient Celts were in the habit of mummifying and then venerating severed heads and skulls

Sapkowski, however, reinterprets the Quest for the Grail as not pursuing a religious object, but the Knightly heroes pursuing a woman to love. And this is where he takes a turn from Celtic and Christian objects.

>I prefer – following Parnicki and Dante – to identify the Grail with the true goal of the great endeavour of mythical heroes. I prefer to identify the Grail with Olwen, from whose feet white clovers sprang as she walked. [...] Because I believe the Grail is a woman. To find her and win her over, to understand her, it’s worth devoting a great deal of time and effort. And that is precisely the moral of the story. [...] All the love literature in the world. The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be

If you read this to the end, massive respect. This was one long analysis. Thank you for reading!

Hello everyone, I would like to share my thoughts on Sapkowski’s inclusion of Galahad in Lady of the Lake. I used to think it was a bit random, but on reading some of Sapkowski’s many translated interviews, his personal views and written works, far from being a brief Arthurian cameo, Galahad occupies a surprisingly deliberate place in Ciri's story.

Now, I don’t think I need to cite too much evidence for Ciri being the Grail in Sapkowski's work as it is well known, so I’ll just use this snippet of an Interview with Andrzej Sapkowski by Daniele Cutali for Sugarpulp MAGAZINE in 2015. I found it the most suited as Sapkowski outright compares Ciri to the Grail:

>DC- Ciri is a central figure in The Blood of Elves (Krew elfów) and Time of Contempt (Czas pogardy). Her story turns Geralt's life upside down. Could the Witcher’s obsession with this child, his desire to make her like them by having her develop and study magical powers, reflect the Witcher’s desire for fatherhood, given that monster hunters are notoriously sterile due to the potions and poisons they consume?

> AS- Of course, that's the only reason I introduced Ciri into the story. The plot is based on a universally known fairy tale, according to which a monster (or a sorcerer) saves someone's life and then demands something in return: "You will give me something you will find in the house without expecting it." This is the basis of the story " A Question of Price ," and then also "Sword of Destiny ," and ultimately the entire saga. A girl promised by fate and destiny, the adopted daughter of a sterile Witcher and an equally sterile Witch who changes both their lives, becomes a "damsel in distress," must be found (like the Grail) and saved... a worthy story, don't you think?

Then, I thought about Sapkowski introducing Galahad in a Lady of the Lake, so I wondered if he wrote more on him in his King Arthur essay, and I found he did:

>Galahad, having achieved the highest goal, together with the miraculous vessel [the grail] leaves this sinful vale for eternity. [...] hope has gone with the grail. the symbol and centre of the spirit have disappeared - and without the spirit, the temporal world, the world of chivalry, the world of Arthur - these worlds must crumble to ashes and dust.

Now, Sapkowski clearly disagrees with the Christian monks on their propaganda, having young men swear off the world, and swearing their life to the church. He aligned himself with more Celtic pagan tradition when it comes to life, and stripping the grail of its Christian layer to its roots in older paganistic tradition is another example.

 Now, when I revisited the Lady of the Lake, I paid closer attention to the Framing device of Galahad and Ciri having their conversation, and I noticed somethings. Ciri is the one taking charge at the end of their dynamic, unlike her previous interactions in the Witcher world. She is the dominant one in their budding relationship. And this reflects very well with Sapkowski’s view on nature: 

>In my work, however, I try to show that a woman really dominates in nature, but not because of her social role, but only because of the organism that nature has endowed her with. Any doctor will tell you that women are more resistant to pain, are less likely to succumb to any infections and diseases and have greater regenerative abilities. Man is a much weaker creature in nature.

>Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

He also says this in his King Arthur essay:

>Because I think that the Grail is a woman. To find her and win her, to understand her it is worth sacrificing a lot of time and effort. And that’s the moral.

And what do I see in Lady of the Lake? I see Galahad listening to her story, pledging himself to her saying ‘I shall always love you and revere you’, giving her a foot massage. In short, he is trying to win her over. Sapkowski is very consistent with his views and themes throughout all his works over the decades. And Ciri reciprocates at the end. Look at what Galahad says near the beginning of their interaction:

>‘They say …’ he blushed and stammered. ‘They say that when fairies meet young men, they lead them to Elfland and there … Beneath a filbert bush, on a carpet of moss, they order them to render—’

>‘I understand.’ She glanced at him quickly, then bit down hard on a sausage.

>Lady of the Lake, A. Sapkowski p. 9

Then near the end of the book, Ciri also begins entertaining the idea of being with Galahad as well:

> “Aha,’ she guessed, seeing him blush. ‘Are you imagining a night under a filbert bush, on a carpet of moss? In the arms of a fairy? Listen, young man, I don’t have the slightest desire—’

>She broke off, looking at his blushing cheeks and shining eyes. At his actually not bad-looking face. Something squeezed her belly and it wasn’t hunger.

>What’s happening to me? she thought. What’s happening to me?

>‘Don’t dilly-dally!’ she almost shouted. ‘Saddle your stallion!’

>When they mounted she looked at him and laughed out loud. He glanced at her, and his gaze was one of amazement and questioning.

>‘Nothing, nothing,’ she said freely. ‘I just thought of something. On we go, Galahad.’

>A carpet of moss, she thought, suppressing a giggle. Under a filbert bush. With me playing the fairy. Well, well.”

Now, Galahads fate in typical Arthurian myth is upon seeing the Grail, chooses to ascend into heaven, and the Grail goes with him. Now, Sapkowski subverts Galahad by not having him as some detached, sterile knight but rather as a nineteen year old man who falls in love with Ciri.

>“Will you ride with me to Camelot?’

>She held out her hand. And he held out his. They joined hands, riding side by side.”

Sapkowski had them hold hands together as a way of showing they are indeed bound together, the Grail and her Knight. And what is interesting to note, is that from then on, it is always ‘them’, it isn’t merely just ‘her’.  Ciri isn’t alone anymore and has her companion in Galahad.

>“They rode straight into the setting sun. Leaving behind them the darkening valley. Behind them was the lake, the enchanted lake, the blue lake as smooth as a polished sapphire. They left behind them the boulders on the lakeside. The pines on the hillsides.

>That was all behind them.

>And before them was everything.”

This is Sapkowski reinventing Galahad’s fate from ascension into Heaven and changing it into him also escaping his ‘destiny’ with Ciri. Whether they go to Camelot and remain there or both depart for another world remains to be seen, but I am inclined towards the former, as I do think Sapkowski is having a reimagining of Camelot. Maybe it doesn’t fall. It does feel like he is changing the focus from unattainable Heavenly pursuits to human love on the worldly plane.

Now, I am aware the short story Something ends, Something begins is non-canon. However, the story was written in 1992, before the main saga, and Sapkowski states in the preface:

>“Attentive readers will notice, however, that in “Something Ends...” certain fragments of text that connect the story with the five-volume series. This is irrefutable proof that the “Witcher saga” was created according to a precise plan and, contrary to rumours, was not written chaotically like a role-playing game and ended when the author got bored."

There are clear things that have remained consistent with Sapkowski’s vision from the beginning to the release of Lady of the Lake in 1999. Some examples are Ciri’s hair turning white, Bonhart and the rats, one-armed Jarre, Ciri wanting revenge for “her mistle” and many more other examples. What is interesting, it is Galahad who appears in Ciri’s world in this story by a boat in the mist, and not the other way round as seen in the ending of the saga.

So, we know Sapkowski always intended for Galahad to meet Ciri, but he portrays their interactions in a clear romantic manner, not only through Galahad and Ciri’s interactions, but the views of Yennefer, Geralt, Triss and Jarre as well:

>"I'm... I'm Galahad," replied the young knight. "May I... May I inquire how is the beautiful and brave maiden feeling?"

>"Which one?" smiled the Witcher. "There are two here, both beautiful, brave, and both maidens, though one of them is a maiden only by chance. Which one do you mean?"

>The young man blushed visibly. "The younger one..." he answered. "The one who rushed to help the Fisher King without hesitation."

>"Who?"

>"He means Herwig," Nenneke butted in. "The ilyocoris attacked the boat in which Herwig and Loki were fishing. Ciri threw herself at the ilyocoris, and this lad, who was nearby by chance, came to her help."

>"So, you helped Ciri," the Witcher looked at the young knight with more attention and gratitude. "What's your name again? I've forgotten."

>"Galahad. Is this Avalon? The castle of the Fisher King?"

[...]

>Galahad, his armour creaking loudly, knelt, or rather fell onto one knee.

>"Fair lady..."

>Ciri's big eyes widened even more.

>"Ciri, allow me," said the Witcher. "This is knight... hmm... Galahad. You already know each other. He helped you when you were fighting the ilyocoris."

>Ciri blushed deeply. The glamarye began to work, so it was a beautiful blush, and the scar was almost invisible.

>"Lady," mumbled Galahad. "Be so kind. Allow me, o beautiful one, to stay... I desire... I desire..."

>"Knowing life, I believe he desires to become your knight, Ciri," said Triss Merigold.

>Ciri clasped her hands behind her back and bowed gracefully, still silent.

>"The guests are waiting," Yennefer interrupted them. "Galahad, I can see that you're not merely a warrior, but a polite lad. You fought together with... my daughter, so you may offer her your arm during the feast. Ciri, go on, change into a dress.

[...]

>Galahad accompanied Ciri and Ciri blushed like a peony.

[...]

>"May the Great Melitele favour you with her grace and blessings, loved ones." Nenneke kissed Yennefer and clinked her glass against Geralt's goblet. "But it took you a damn long time. Well, you're wedded now. I'm very happy for you, but I hope Ciri won't follow your example and that if she finds someone, she won't wait so long."

>"I have the impression," waved Geralt in the direction of Galahad, enchanted by the girl witcher, "that she's already found someone."

>"Are you talking about that odd character?" said the astonished priestess. "Oh, no. Nothing will come out of that. Did you take a closer look at him? No? Well then, look at what he's doing. For effect he's courting Ciri, but at the same time constantly examines and gropes at all the cups on the table. You must admit that it's not really a normal behaviour. I'm wondering why that girl looks at him like at a painting. Jarre, on the other hand... He's a reasonable, polite..."

>"Your reasonable and polite Jarre has just fallen under the table," Yennefer interrupted her. "And now enough, Nenneke. Ciri is coming to us."

>The ashen-haired witcher girl sat on the chair vacated by Herwig and cuddled up against the sorceress.

>"I'm leaving," she said quietly.

>"I know, daughter."

>"Galahad... Galahad is coming with me. I don't know why. But I can't stop him, can I?"

>"Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman."

Galahad goes on to have a conversation with Dandelion about his pursuit of the Grail and comes to the realisation, his journey was in vain, or so he thinks. Dandelion however thinks otherwise and as a poet, deciphers the meaning behind the search for the Grail, and tells him outright what his ‘Grail’ truly is.

>"They were right," he whispered. "It's but a legend. A fairy tale. A fantasy. In short - a lie. Instead of Avalon a common Marshland. I'm out of hope."

>"There, there," the poet jabbed at his side with his hand. "Don't fall into sorrow, boy. Why the damn melancholy? You're at a wedding, so have fun, drink and sing. You're still young, you have an entire life ahead of you."

>"Life," repeated the knight thoughtfully. "How is it again, Master Dandelion? Something begins, or something ends? 

>"No, I don't know," he replied. "And if I don't know, then no one does. The conclusion is that nothing ever ends and nothing ever begins."

>"I don't understand."

>"And you don't have to."

>Galahad thought again, frowning.

>"And the Grail?" he asked finally. "What has become of the Grail?"

>"What is Grail?"

>"It's something we're searching for," explained Galahad, setting his sad eyes on the troubadour. "Something that is the most important. Without which life has no meaning. Without which we're incomplete and imperfect."

>The bard pressed his lips and looked at the knight with his famous gaze, a wise gaze mixed with a jovial honesty.

>"You fool," he replied, "you've been sitting next to your Grail for the entire evening."

Thank you all for reading!