Origins of the Grail

Whether you accept Weston's thesis of the origin of the Grail in vegetation fertility cults, or Loomis' thesis of the origin in Celtic cauldrons or Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh's thesis of the origin in the womb of Jesus' wife, you must not overlook the historical milieu of the Grail stories.

Around 1050 the monks of Vezelay begin claiming to have the body and relics of Mary Magdalene. In 1099 the first crusade was launched, and Peter Bartholomew returned from the Levant with the Spear of Longinus. This sparked off a new round of relic fever. In 1119 the Templars were founded, and within a century the area of southern France became the heart of their financial empire. Around 1012 the Cathars appeared in Languedoc and flourished for the next 200 years. In 1065 Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac founded a Kabbala school in the court of Champagne at Troyes, the birthplace of Chrétien, and a haven for non-Catholics feeling persecution (this would include Cathars), which lasted over 200 years. This school was characterized by a belief that the Ark of the covenant was buried beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Rabbi also had contact with the Count of Flanders. In 1070 Hughes de Payns was born in Payne, 10 km from Troyes. Hughes later founded the Knights Templar. In 1076 at the Synod of Worms, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV deposed Pope Gregory VII, who in turn excommunicated Henry. They reconcile in 1077, then split again in 1080. In 1088 Hasan ibn al-Sabbah begins the Ismaili order of Assassins at Alamut. In 1084 Emperor Henry IV conquers Rome and replaces Gregory VII with Clement III. In 1187 Saladin captures the True Cross at the battle of Hattin, calling even more attention to relics. Around 1200 the Sefer ha-Bahir was written in Provençe by Isaac the Blind. In 1215 the Real Presence of Jesus' body in the Eucharist via transubstantiation was confirmed at the 4th Lateran (12th Ecumenical) Council.

In 1066 England became a French speaking nation. Many Grail "experts" write things like, "The theory that the Arthur story along with the grail's beginnings were developed in the British Isles has flaws. There is no Anglo-Norman version to be examined and all the Middle English versions are derived from the French. This too is not solid in its foundation as the geography of the French quest romances is obviously British and revolves around the resting place of the grail being in Britain." (http://www.florilegium.org) Forgetting that Wolfram's Grail Castle is in southern France? That the Vulgate Queste puts the Grail Castle in Egypt? Chrétien locates Arthur's court in Brittany. Even the first continuation of Chré:tien has Gawain crossing a long causeway to an island to reach the Grail Castle. Forgetting that the language of England was French and that most of present-day France was part of England at that time? With the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II of England, England inherited almost all of western France from Aquitaine to Anjou. Even some of those parts of France which weren't English weren't French. Languedoc was actually under the suzerainty of the King of Aragon and Provençe was part of the Kingdom of Burgundy. Modern borders have little relation to medieval nationalism.

In 1077 began the reign in Aquitaine of Duke William IX, the first Troubadour, and the grandfather of Eleanor. He was excommunicated twice and his response was to demand absolution from the Bishop of Poitiers at sword point. In 1152 Eleanor of Aquitaine became Queen of England, bringing the Provençal language and the troubadour traditions of southern France with her. In 1189 she became Regent of England for her son Richard the Lion-Heart. In 1164 Eleanor's daughter Marie married the Count of Champagne and in 1181 became Regent of Champagne.

By 1190, enormous parts of Europe were controlled by women who came from a tradition of strength and independence, defiance of Rome and courtly love. In 1180 Chrétien writes Li Comte du Graal and dedicates it to Marie of Champagne.

Perlesvaus was written about 1190, Robert de Boron writes his Perceval around 1202. Wolfram begins Parzival in 1204. The Vulgate cycle is finished by 1230. There is reason to believe that Eleanor of Aquitaine was the patroness of the Vulgate cycle and that it was written or conceived by Walter Map one of Eleanor's supporters. Wolfram claims his story comes from Provençe ("Kyot of Provençe") and his grail castle, Munsalvaesche is set in the Pyrenees (according to Wagner, some writers place it at Montserrat in Catalonia, some at Montsegur). Southern France is central to the development of the Grail stories.

In 1209 the siege of Bezier kicks off the Albigensian Crusade. In 1215 the Dominican order was established and the inquisition given into their hands. By 1244 the fall of the Cathar stronghold of Montsegur spelled the effective end of the Cathars. Montsegur is often named as a candidate for the Holy Grail castle—and indeed there are linguistic similarities in the Parzival written by Wolfram von Eschenbach. In Parzival the grail castle is called Monsalvat, similar to Montsegur and meaning the same thing: "safe mountain, secure mountain." The name of Raymond Pereille, the historic seigneur of Montsegur has slight similarities to protagonist of Eschenbach's epic, the knight Parzival. In Jüngerer Titurel (1272) by Albrecht von Scharffenberg, an expansion of Wolfram's Titurel, the first Grail king is named Perilla.

The ninth and last Crusade was undertaken in 1271 and with the fall of Acre in 1291, the last Christian rule in Syria ceased to exist. In 1307 the King of France (Philip IV) arrested the French Templars, and effectively ended that entity. Suddenly no more Grail stories are being written.

The milieu of the Grail stories is the rule of Eleanor and her daughter in England and western France, the Crusades and the influence of the Templars, the troubadours and the prominence of the Cathars. Influences at work in southern France in the formative 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries certainly must include the Templars, the Cathars, the Kabbalists, the Crusades, the English presence, Eleanor of Aquitaine and her family, and the climate of relic "discovery".

By 1300 it had all ceased to exist.

Even those who are experts in Grail source documents occasionally fail to remember the historical perspective of the writers. We know that Arthur stories had been around for a while, because an archivolt in Modena built in 1120 depicts the rescue of Guinevere. With the advent of relic fever caused by the first Crusade, it is easy to see why troubadours might incorporate a super relic into Arthur stories. With the then-recent (ca. 1040-1115) advent of the Chanson de Roland and the cycle of Charlemagne stories, it is easy to see Eleanor of Aquitaine commissioning a cycle of British heroic stories. The fact that early stories are all in French has no bearing, the Norman court was French speaking. We know that Chr&eeacute;tien dedicated his work to Eleanor's daughter.

And yet, let us not overlook that the "relic" concept isn't really there in many of the texts. It could be said to be implicit in Chrétien and his continuators, but certainly not in an orthodox manner. Chrétien's Grail is a dish or platter whose only virtue is that it feeds everybody. Wolfram makes his grail a stone, the "lapis exillis" and makes the guardians pseudo-templars. A thoroughly heterodox interpretation which involves an apostolic succession which is opposed to Rome—indeed Henry VIII of England used it as an excuse to break with Rome, saying that Joseph of Arimathea was in England before Peter was in Rome and therefore the English church should have precedence over that of Rome. We need to be careful not to read into the text more than is already there, but a look at the historical milieu convinces us that some ideas spurned by Protestant fundies and Catholics alike most definitely are included:

1. The presence in France of Mary Magdalene and her possible descendents.
2. A non-Apostolic, even heterodox succession and divine presence.
3. An initiation ritual of a clearly progressive and Gnostic nature including magical words, or a liturgical formula which is outside the orthodox mass.
4. The divine and sacrificed king of fertility rituals—all early manuscripts are alike in ascribing the wasteland's cause to the gelding of the Fisher King.
5. A cornucopia which feeds and even physically protects those who are near.

Considering Robert Graves' in-depth analysis of the marriage possibilities between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and-or Mary of Bethany in his King Jesus one can conclude that Don Brown's egregious historical faux pas do not include the Jesus marriage concept. That idea has documentary support from antiquity and up until the writing of the Grail stories.

Both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria write that Jesus was married. Origen, on the other hand, assumed he was not. Mary of Bethany, who may have been the same person as Mary Magdalene, is shown in the gospels as performing some of the duties of a wife, and in symbolic moments, fulfilling that role..

Whether Jesus was married or not was simply not an issue for the early Church, who simply accepted that Jesus was a married man, but offered little comment. It wasn't until the second century that the idea of marriage came into conflict with developing ideas about Jesus as a divine being. Later, ideas about the impurity of sexual behavior would make a married Jesus intolerable. So distasteful was the idea that even Jesus' mother was declared to have been a virgin her entire life. Many early Christians believed the Old Testament Song of Solomon was prophetic of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen. Two Christian authors, Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria, subscribed to this belief. ~http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_davinci2.htm?terms=jesus+married

In addition, two Gnostic gospels refer to Mary Magdalene as being particularly intimate with Jesus. And many (6 or 8) Gnostic gospels refer to a divine feminine by another name: Barbelos, Eve, the Thunder, Sophia, etc. And the Gospel of Thomas makes Jesus to say he will change Mary Magdalene into a man so she can inherit the kingdom of God.

The marriage question is more complex and rich than either Dan Brown or the church are willing to admit. And throughout history it has cropped up again and again, in exactly the manner you would expect if, in fact, there were an underground or secret doctrine being whispered about.

Given that Mary's presence in France is part and parcel of the century in which the grail stories begin, and given that the marriage of Jesus and Mary has mythographic and documentary support, and given that the milieu of the Grail includes the Cathars – cum – Bogomils – cum – Paulicians – cum – Manichaeans – cum – Gnostics, it is a likely historical thesis that a tradition of Jesus' descendents was passed down in secret societies and incorporated into the Grail stories. This is actually likely, although, by the nature of secret societies, we will never have historical documentation one way or another. Remember that we have an unbroken line of "secret" societies and esoteric doctrines from the first century until the time the Grail stories were written, and we have one of these secret societies pervading the area of southern France where the Grail stories originate and while the Grail stories are being written.

Our scenario would go like this: Gnostic churches retain the knowledge of Jesus' descendents as a secret or inner doctrine. By the time Gnostics are being persecuted out of existence, one little known Gnostic group flees the jurisdiction of the persecuting Roman church just as the heirs of Plato did when Justinian closed the Academy. They migrate to the Persian empire whose Zoroastrianism is both sympathetic and doctrinally similar. They become the Manicheans. The Manicheans keep the knowledge of Jesus descendents as part of the inner, initiatory knowledge. Manichaean doctrines and secret knowledge get passed to the Paulicians, then to the Bogomils and finally to the Cathars, who pass their knowledge on to both the Templars and to Chrétien, Kyot, Wolfram, Walter Map, et al who incorporate part of the knowledge, mixed in with 1000 years of initiatory esoterica and mythographic storytelling into the already popular Arthurian legend. Since the time and place is rife with miraculous relic stories, the whole narrative is put into the format of a quest for a relic which can be construed as a euphemism for Mary's womb, and-or as a linguistic pun for Jesus' royal blood.

Of course, it changes the mystic knowledge of how to achieve an initiatory "union with God" into an ordinary and pedestrian knowledge of a secret genealogy, but it's certainly possible.

The possibility of this special knowledge surviving to the present day therefore becomes exactly the same as the possibility of any secret knowledge of the Knights Templar being passed to the present through whatever means that might occur: Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Teutonic Knights, Robert Bruce's recruitment, or whatever templar survival scenario you enjoy most. Clearly the story of templar survival has been around since Alexander Dumas wrote that someone in the crowd at Louis XVI's beheading shouted out "Jacques DeMolay, thou art avenged!" Whatever historical probability there is in the survival of templar knowledge and traditions becomes now the exact same probability for the survival of knowledge of Jesus' descendents.

Of course that doesn't forgive Mr Brown's lapse in research. Dan Brown clearly was unaware of the antiquity and actual possibility of his own thesis—if he had been he wouldn’t have cribbed so unashamedly from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but used a plot line built on real research, not Pierre Plantard's forgeries.

A casual perusal of Wolfram's epic opus will convince one that he has in mind an extra-Apostolic succession which assiduously avoids contact with the monarchical bishops of medieval orthodoxy. This is a conflict which begins in the second century (ca 175) with Ireneus of Lyons and his adversus heresies. A diatribe against specifically Gnostic churches. We have the testimony of apologists and fathers that bypassing the hierarchy is a Gnostic hallmark.

Initiation per se can also be ascribed to the Gnostics. An initiation into a secret inner order is the identifying mark of the Gnostics who wrote the texts of Nag Hammadi. One recent book, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, gives a penetrating analysis of Gnostic Christianity in the first century and contends that Gnosticism was possibly the original Christianity because it was so prevalent in the Roman Empire before the time of Constantine. We know of 8 distinct Gnostic and Docetic sects which flourished from Spain to Egypt in the first three centuries of the Christian era, and we have documentary records of "Orthodox" Christianity only in the second century, and only in Italy and Anatolia. We know from Irenius's own testimony that Marcionism was the majority sect of northern Anatolia, the very area Acts ascribes to Paul's ministry, and that Marcion lionized Paul. Was the record expunged in the fourth century to "orthodoxize" Paul and rescue him from Gosticism? It is now impossible to tell. We know from Euseubius' own testimony that he considered it no sin to lie for the sake of the gospel, and the orthodox picture of history depends entirely on him. Unless there is reason to consider Eusebius to be divinely inspired, we cannot take his word for early church history.

What this means for the holy grail literature is that an underground of heterodoxy and especially Gnostic initiatory style heterodoxy very well could have existed and been transmitted for a thousand years by way of the Manichaeans to the Paulicians to the Bogomils to the Cathars to the writers of the Holy Grail romances.

I have read Barber's contention that the Grail was entirely orthodox. I do not buy it. Mr Barber has to completely ignore the plain text evidence of secret words, extra-apostolic succession, magical stones falling from heaven, and hermits who hear confession and forgive sin outside the aegis of the Roman priesthood. There is a liturgy detailed in Wolfram's Parsival which is not out of the orthodox Roman missal.

No grail story ever says that Jesus was married. Brown simply lies about that. But it is possible that the message is being transmitted in an allegory. Not likely, but possible. The Chrétien wasteland and its redemption when the fisher king is healed seem to me to be a reference to the liturgy of Adonis, not Mary Magdalene (just as Jesse Weston interpreted it) but I have been wrong before, and I could be wrong about this.

The only rational conclusion is that the objections to The DaVinci Code which are made by the writers of fundamentalist rants, whether Protestant or Catholic, are as incompetently researched as Brown's own historical tidbits. All the "objections" to Brown which I have seen on the net or in print are as idiotic as Brown himself is. These people attempt to deceive you into believing that their faith constitutes historical evidence. But then deception is the methodology of Christian fundamentalism as surely as sword point is the methodology of Islamic fundamentalism.