by S. J. Hodge
The Grail legends
At the beginning of the 13th century, Wolfram von Eschenbach (c.1170–c.1220), a German knight and poet, wrote the epic poem Parzival, based on Chrétien’s story. Parzival continues the romance of King Arthur and the search for the Grail, and Eschenbach hints at a knightly brotherhood, the Tempeleisen, as being the guardians of the Grail. This was the point at which the Knights Templar became linked with the story of the Grail. In Eschenbach’s version, the Grail was a stone, which gave rise to some theories that it was the philosopher’s stone: a legendary substance said to be capable of turning base metals into gold or silver. Soon, it was conjectured that King Solomon had something to do with this stone and then later the Templars were described as being linked to it. The idea that they could have found the stone where King Solomon left it under Temple Mount for 2,000 years became popular and it was conjectured by some that this was how they attained their vast wealth. The Grail was also sometimes described as an elixir of life, used for rejuvenation and possibly even for achieving immortality.
Another poet, Robert de Boron (late 12th–early 13th centuries), first wrote about the Grail as being a sacred vessel. He was also the first to call it ‘Holy’. His poem, Le Romain de l’Histoire dou Graal, ou Joseph d’Arimathe, described Perceval and Arthur once again, but it also included Joseph of Arimathea in connection with the Grail. De Boron described the vessel as a chalice that Joseph of Arimathea took from the Last Supper and used to catch the last drops of blood from Jesus as he died on the cross. Robert de Boron claimed that Joseph of Arimathea’s descendants took the Grail to the vaus d’Avaron, or the valley of Avaron, which later poets called Avalon and later still was identified as Glastonbury in the south-west of England, where it was given to King Arthur. In later medieval French stories, the idea became linked with the act of transubstantiation in the Mass – in Holy Communion, the wafer and the wine are served in chalices. Further confusion arose much later over a pun on a word. Sangréal is an alternative name for the ‘Holy Grail’. In old French, san graal or san gréal means ‘Holy Grail’, while sang réal means ‘royal blood’. This seems likely to be merely a pun that has been exploited in conspiracy theories.
Many of the stories about the Grail contradicted each other; although most of them focused on King Arthur rather than the Templars, over the centuries theories about what the Grail is, who it belongs to and where it might be hidden have been rife. One theory is that it is hidden inside a pillar in the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.
Like the True Cross, there are various ancient chalices kept in sacred places that at different times have been claimed to be the Holy Grail. One, in the St Mary of Valencia Cathedral in Spain, is said to have been left there by St Lawrence in the third century. Other stories claim that the Grail is buried deep in the spring at Glastonbury Tor in England; that it was buried beneath Montségur Castle by the Cathars before their final demise in the Albigensian Crusade; that it was hidden by the Templars in Oak Island in Nova Scotia’s ‘Money Pit’ (see The Money Pit), or that they hid it somewhere in northern Spain. This last theory has been given further credence by the fact that several 12th-century church paintings in the area feature the Virgin Mary holding a dish from which rays of light radiate.
The popularity of the concept of the Holy Grail that had emerged with Eschenbach’s Parzival in the 13th century waned during the 16th century and was not revived until the 19th century, when writers including Sir Walter Scott and Alfred Lord Tennyson and artists such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti began featuring it in their work. In 1882, Richard Wagner’s opera Parsifal gave a new impetus to the story. Yet despite such fascination by so many over the centuries about the Holy Grail and the different guises it has assumed, there has never been any solid evidence that it ever existed or that the Templars had it in their possession. Chrétien’s story appeared at a time when religious relics were particularly venerated, when chivalry and romance were fashionable and when the Knights Templar were at their peak, renowned for their valour, energy, strength and trustworthiness. There is no physical evidence to support the claim that the Holy Grail was part of secret treasure excavated by the Templars under Temple Mount. The Holy Grail was not mentioned for 11 centuries after Christ’s death, then it appeared in a work of fiction. It rose in popularity at a time when holy relics were of great importance, and by the 14th century there were about 20 Holy Grails in different locations around Europe. Not one has ever been substantiated and links with the Templars remain as elusive and ambiguous as the story did when it was first mentioned by a 12th-century troubadour.
Rosslyn Chapel
The story attached to the Apprentice Pillar in the Rosslyn Chapel is that it was carved by a gifted apprentice while his master had gone to Rome for inspiration. When the master returned and found the pillar magnificently carved and completed, he flew into a fit of jealous rage and killed the apprentice by hitting him on the head with a mallet. There is a cleft on the pillar that is linked to the story as it is said that this was where the master mason’s mallet struck after hitting his apprentice. The story is a Masonic legend. Before 1700 and the development of Freemasonry, the pillar was called the Prince’s Pillar and there were no stories of apprentices or murders in the chapel. No one knows for sure whether the pillar is hollow or solid and no one knows whether or not the Knights Templar had anything to do with the Rosslyn Chapel. As it was founded over 130 years after the Order’s demise, it seems unlikely, but outside there is a grave slab carved with the name ‘William de St Cler’, which has a symbol next to it of a splayed cross, the design used by the Templars. In 1546, Mary of Guise, the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots, wrote to Lord William Sinclair of Rosslyn, referring to ‘a great secret within Rosslyn’. The ‘great secret’ has never been discovered and there is no particular reason why this should be a secret connected to the Knights Templar. However, among the many symbols carved in the chapel, some say that one appears to be the Templar seal. But the carving does not show two men on a horse as in the Templar seal. Instead, one man is clearly walking behind the horse. Additionally, there are over 100 ‘green men’ in the Chapel: carved faces with foliage growing from them. They are said to represent fertility, growth and the months of the year, and to depict the abundance of nature. They resemble several similar carvings in a number of 11th-century churches built by the Templars in Jerusalem, but they also resemble many more similar, carved faces in Christian churches built across Europe by numerous other parties and not just the Templars. None of these notions were mentioned before the formation of Freemasonry in the early 18th century. Some still suggest that the Holy Grail is buried somewhere in the Rosslyn Chapel, but the Rosslyn Chapel Trust forbids any disruptive searching in a sanctified place where so many are buried. As the Holy Grail is one of the most sought-after relics in the world, the Rosslyn Chapel Trust would gain a fortune if it was found there, so if there was the slightest chance that it was there, it is likely that the Trust would have looked for it.
The Apprentice Pillar in Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian, Scotland. Designed by William Sinclair, a descendant of Norman knights, the chapel’s construction took 40 years and contains many symbols that seem to link with the Templars.
The Shroud of Turin
In the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin in Italy is an old linen cloth known as the Shroud of Turin. The cloth measures 4.4 × 1.1 metres (14⅓ × 3½ feet) and imprinted on it is the faint image of a man with a beard who appears to have been traumatized, possibly crucified. The mysterious fabric has long been venerated as the burial shroud of Christ, but despite chemical analysis and carbon-dating, no one can verify its exalted claims. The most common consensus after carbon-dating is that it was made between the 11th and 14th centuries, although other claims suggest that it possibly dates from an earlier time. At one point, it was thought that brownish-red marks on the cloth were paint, and the image was possibly even created by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). Then it was thought that the image was produced by a
medieval chemical process. Both those ideas have now been discarded and the origins of the shroud and its image continue to be the subject of debate. The cloth is the property of the Vatican, which refuses to declare it to be the burial shroud of Christ.
The Shroud of Turin. For many years, this linen cloth that appears to bear the image of a man who had suffered physical trauma has been studied and debated by experts. Commonly claimed to be the shroud that covered Christ’s crucified body, experiments have so far been inconclusive. The shroud was initially linked with the Knights Templar after their demise in 1357.
The fabric’s links with the Knights Templar came with its first known public appearance in 1357, when it was apparently produced by the widow of the Templar knight Geoffrey de Charney, who had been burned at the stake with Jacques de Molay in 1314. It has been suggested that the Templars were given the cloth as a gift or simply for safekeeping in 1204 after the sack of Constantinople, which makes the 1988 carbon-dating of 1260 to 1390 incorrect. If the Templars were holding the cloth for someone else, that would explain why they did not display it or make it known that they had it. However, they kept detailed records of all their transactions and donations – and there is no written record of the shroud being in their keeping at any point. A letter was written, however, by Theodore Ducas Angelus, the ruler of the kingdom of Salonika from 1223/4 to 1230, to Pope Innocent III after the Fourth Crusade. The letter stated that part of the Crusaders’ loot was the linen in which Jesus was wrapped after his death and before his resurrection and it had been taken to Athens. Another theory has been purported: that the cloth was not used by Jesus, but by either Jacques de Molay or Geoffrey de Charney after they had been tortured but before they were burned at the stake.
There might also be a visual connection. In 1185, a large tract of land was donated to the Templars in Somerset, England. They built a village there called Templecombe. It became a popular village and a number of Templars were living there during the 14th century when the Order was suppressed. In 1951, during the demolition of an outhouse in the village, a curious panel painting was discovered hidden in the roof of the building. Carbon-dated to the year 1280, the painting is of the head of a bearded man. The image has been variously described as representing Jesus or the head of St John the Baptist, or a copy of the Shroud of Turin. There are several assumptions to be made here. If it was an image of Jesus, it is curious that it was hidden. Images of Jesus are frequently found in Roman Catholic establishments and it is usual among the religious to use these images as a prompt or focus when praying. Even if the painting was commissioned by the Templars, the mystery remains, why did they then hide it? If it represents the Turin Shroud, is this evidence that the shroud was in their possession as has been claimed? So far, no questions can be answered satisfactorily. The Shroud of Turin remains a mystery and so does the Templecombe painting. It is possible that the Templars believed the painting had magical or mystical powers. Perhaps the painting itself was the head they were accused of worshipping.
Another element to the mystery is the story of the ‘Mandylion’. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, an image known as the Mandylion is a holy relic consisting of a rectangle of cloth imprinted with the face of Jesus. According to the legend, during Christ’s lifetime, King Abgar of Edessa wrote to Jesus, asking him if he would cure him of an illness. Jesus replied declining the invitation, but promising a future visit by one of his apostles. According to accounts from centuries later, the apostle Thaddeus is said to have been sent to Edessa by Jesus and he duly cured the king. Some time after, it was said that Thaddeus carried with him the image of Jesus on a cloth and left it in Edessa, and it was reported that a portrait of Christ had a miraculous effect during the fight of Edessa against the Persians in 544 CE. In the tenth century the image was moved to Constantinople, but it was taken during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. The object claimed to be the Mandylion is now kept in the Pope’s private chapel in the Vatican and is rarely seen by the public.
The origins of the Mandylion are obscure. Some say it was painted, others say that the image formed when Jesus dried his wet head on a piece of cloth. There is scholarly disagreement about whether the cloth is the original or a copy – as well as what exactly it is. Some believe that the painting found in Templecombe is a copy of the Mandylion and that it may have been left in the Order’s possession for a while. The head they were accused of worshipping was described in some accounts as a ‘plaque’ and in others as an ‘idol’. The word plaque suggests a flat, rather than a three-dimensional object, so perhaps it was simply the Templecombe painting.
The painting of a man’s head, found in a building in Templecombe, Somerset, England in 1951, has been carbon-dated to the year 1280. Hidden in an old Templar building, the mystery about the work has grown as much for whom it represents as why it was hidden.
The head
Possibly one of the strangest accusations levelled at the Knights Templar in 1307 was that they worshipped a head. Some – but not all – were accused of owning a head that they worshipped in place of God. Like so many Templar mysteries, where the idea originated and whose head it was has become obscure and confused. In different reports, the head was described variously as the embalmed head of Jesus, of St John the Baptist or of Hugh de Payns; some said it had magical powers and that it could answer questions, provide the Templars with wealth and destroy their enemies. It was also occasionally described as the head of a cat and it was sometimes linked with the idea of a pagan deity with the name Baphomet, but even this is ambiguous. In some accounts, Baphomet was made of gold and silver, in others it was a real embalmed head with long hair and a beard. Some described it as having three faces, four legs, horns or even that it was the Devil’s head. It has since been suggested that the name developed from the Arabic word ‘Muhammad’, which also appeared as Mahomet and Mahmoud in c.1205. Others believe that Baphomet is a corruption of Mahomet (the medieval European pronunciation of Muhammad). Both of these notions were used in the accusations to imply that the Templars were secretly Muslims, even though Muslims do not worship idols. Raymond d’Aguilers, the chronicler of the First Crusade who followed Count Raymond IV of Toulouse to Jerusalem, calls mosques ‘Bafumarias’, which could be connected. Around 1265, a poem written by a French troubadour widely believed to have been a Templar, who lived in the Holy Land, mentioned the name ‘Bafometz’:
Then it is really foolish to fight the Turks, not that Jesus Christ no longer opposes them. They have vanquished the Franks and Tartars and Armenians and Persians, and they continue to do so. And daily they impose new defeats on us, for God, who used to watch on our behalf, is now asleep, and Bafometz puts forth his power to support the Sultan.
RICAUT BONOMEL, c.1265
Still, there has never been a conclusive definition of the word, and even under torture most Templars denied any knowledge of owning or worshipping any head at all. In total, only nine Templars did admit to owning some form of head, but this was under torture and none of their stories correspond to each other. Beyond France, where Templars were not tortured, no one even mentioned a head. In 1307, under torture, Guillaume de Arbley, who was the preceptor of the Templar house at Soissy in the diocese of Meaux, testified that he had seen the ‘bearded head’ twice, which he claimed was gilded and made of silver and wood. Three years later, he claimed that the gilded head placed on Templar altars was a representation of 11,000 virgins.
Etienne de Troyes is described as having been a serving brother from the diocese of Meaux who left the Order because he was molested by another Templar. Before he could leave, his mother had to pay for his release. He is said to have testified that the Templars were told to worship and do homage to a head. Raoul de Gizy, a serving brother who was preceptor of the houses of Lagny-le-Sec and Sommereux, claimed to have seen a mysterious head in seven Templar houses, where it was held aloft by Hugh de Pairaud, the Templar Visitor; Raoul de Gizy described the head as being ‘demonic’ and that the Templars had to prostrate th
emselves before it. Pierre d’Arbley attested to an object with two faces and four legs. Another Templar mentioned a skull, but religious buildings of the period frequently had skulls in them and this would not have been unusual, as skulls were used as symbols of mortality. The Templars did own several silver-gilt heads as reliquaries, but so did other orders and churches. The trials in Paris produced little evidence of this idol worship and nothing consistent. The name Baphomet was not mentioned in the trials, did not appear in the official list of accusations against them, and there is no mention of Baphomet either in the Templar Rule or in any other Templar document. It seems likely that their interrogators simply wanted to land a charge of idolatry and so heresy on the Templars and to imply that they were colluding with the Muslims in the Holy Land, or that they were Devil-worshippers, but nothing was ever substantiated, especially outside France where the Templars were not tortured.
Scottish legends
During the late 13th and early 14th centuries, England under Edward I was at war with Scotland. In June 1314 his son, Edward II, engaged the Scots at the Battle of Bannockburn. According to the legend that was written in 1843, the Scots were losing until a group of reinforcements appeared and changed the direction of the battle in favour of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce. It was said that these reinforcements were the Knights Templar, emerging after their suppression, to support King Robert. Yet no contemporary or near contemporary accounts of the battle mention the Knights Templar. The vanquished English did not mention them, which they would probably have done had they seen members of a recently deposed order fighting as one force. The excommunicated King Robert the Bruce was desperate to please the Pope and the King of France, so would not have wanted to associate with the Templars. In addition, two members of the Knights Templar had fought for Edward I at the Battle of Falkirk in 1297 and Edward II had protected them against the French Inquisitors, so it is unlikely that in such a short time they would take up arms against him. In any case, it is often said that the story of the Templars at Bannockburn was never meant to be taken as factual history, but was written for Freemasons’ ceremonies in the 18th century along with several others. But there had been a Templar presence in Scotland since King David I granted them lands at Ballantrodoch in 1128. It is possible that a few Templars managed to escape arrest in France and fled to Scotland, or that after their suppression, Templars in Scotland were released from imprisonment and established themselves there, but how they could earn a living when existing as a brotherhood but not sanctioned as a religious fraternity would have been a major problem and any gold that they may have secreted from their preceptories would have aroused suspicion.
