Holy Blood, Holy Grail

by Baigent, Michael

  At the same time Guillem was more than a warrior. Shortly before 792 he established an academy at Gellone, importing scholars and creating a renowned library; and Gellone soon became an esteemed center of Judaic studies. It is from just such an academy that the "heathen" Flegetanis might have issued—the Hebrew scholar descended from Solomon who, according to Wolfram, confided the secret of the Holy Grail to Kyot of Provence.

  In 806 Guillem withdrew from active life, secluding himself in his academy. Here, around 812, he died, and the academy was later converted into a monastery, the now famous Saint-Guilhelm-le-Désert.13 Even before Guillem’s death, however, Gellone had become one of the first known seats in Europe for the cult of the Magdalen14 —which, significantly enough, flourished there concurrently with the Judaic academy.

  Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah and the royal house of David. The Magdalen is said to have carried the Grail—the Sangraal or "royal blood"—into France. And in the eighth century there was, in the south of France, a potentate of the Tribe of Judah and the royal house of David, who was acknowledged as king of the Jews. He was not only a practicing Jew, however; he was also a Merovingian. And through Wolfram von Eschenbach’s poem he and his family are associated with the Holy Grail.

  THE SEED OF DAVID

  In later centuries assiduous attempts seem to have been made to expunge from the records all trace of the Jewish kingdom of Septimania. The frequent confusion of "Goths" and "Jews" seems indicative of this censorship. But the censorship could not hope to be entirely successful. As late as 1143 Peter the Venerable of Cluny, in an address to Louis VII of France, condemned the Jews of Narbonne, who claimed to have a king residing among them. In 1144 a Cambridge monk, one Theobald, speaks of "the chief Princes and Rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain [and] assemble together at Narbonne where the royal seed resides."15 And in 1165-66 Benjamin of Tudela, a famous traveler and chronicler, reports that in Narbonne there are "sages, magnates and princes at the head of whom is ... a descendant of the House of David as stated in his family tree."16

  But any seed of David residing in Narbonne by the twelfth century was of less consequence than certain other seed living elsewhere. Family trees bifurcate, spread, subdivide, and produce veritable forests. If certain descendants of Theodoric and Guillem de Gellone remained in Narbonne, there were others who over the intervening four centuries had attained more august domains. By the twelfth century these domains included the most illustrious in Christendom— Lorraine and the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem.

  In the ninth century the bloodline of Guillem de Gellone had cluminated in the first dukes of Aquitaine. It also became aligned with the ducal house of Brittany. And in the tenth century a certain Hugues de Plantard—nicknamed "long Nose" and a lineal descendant of both Dagobert and Guillem de Gellone—became the father of Eustache, first count of Boulogne. Eustache’s grandson was Godfroi de Bouillon, duke of Lorraine and conqueror of Jerusalem. And from Godfroi there issued a dynasty and a "royal tradition" that, by virtue of being founded on "the rock of Sion," was equal to those presiding over France, England, and Germany. If the Merovingians were indeed descended from Jesus, then Godfroi—scion of the Merovingian blood royal—had, in his conquest of Jerusalem, regained his rightful heritage.

  Godfroi and the subsequent house of Lorraine were, of course, nominally Catholic. To survive in a now Christianized world, they would have had to be. But their origins seem to have been known in certain quarters at least. As late as the sixteenth century it is reported that Henry of Lorraine, duke of Guise, on entering the town of Joinville in Champagne, was received by exuberant crowds. Among

  16 Coat of arms of Rennes-le-Château

  17 The official device of the Prieuré de Sion

  them certain individuals are recorded to have chanted "Hosannah filio David" ("Hosannah to the son of David").17

  It is not perhaps insignificant that this incident is recounted in a modern history of Lorraine, printed in 1966. The work contains a special introduction by Otto von Hapsburg—who today is titular duke of Lorraine and king of Jerusalem.

  15

  Conclusion and Portents for the Future

  But if, for instance, the statement that Christ rose from the dead is to be understood not literally but symbolically, then it is capable of various interpretations that do not conflict with knowledge and do not impair the meaning of the statement. The objection that understanding it symbolically puts an end to the Christian’s hope of immortality is invalid, because long before the coming of Christianity mankind believed in a life after death and therefore had no need of the Easter event as a guarantee of immortality. The danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock and barrel is today greater than ever. Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically for once?

  Carl Jung, "The Undiscovered Self", Collected Works, vol. 10 (1956) p. 266

  We had not, in the beginning, set out to prove or disprove anything, least of all the conclusion to which we had been ineluctably led. We had certainly not set out to challenge some of the most basic tenets of Christianity. On the contrary, we had begun by investigating a specific mystery. We were looking for answers to certain perplexing questions, explanations for certain historical enigmas. In the process we more or less stumbled upon something rather greater than we had initially bargained for. We were led to a startling, controversial, and seemingly preposterous conclusion.

  This conclusion compelled us to turn our attention to the life of Jesus and the origins of the religion founded upon him. When we did so, we were still not attempting to challenge Christianity. We were simply trying to determine whether or not our conclusion was tenable. An exhaustive consideration of biblical material convinced us that it was. Indeed, we became convinced that our conclusion was not only tenable, but extremely probable.

  We could not—and still cannot—prove the accuracy of our conclusion. It remains, to some extent at least, a hypothesis. But it is a plausible hypothesis that makes coherent sense. It explains a great deal. And so far as we are concerned, it constitutes a more historically likely account than any we have encountered of the events and people who, two thousand years ago, imprinted themselves on Western consciousness—and in the centuries that followed, shaped our culture and civilization.

  If we cannot prove our conclusion, however, we have received abundant evidence—from both their documents and their representatives—that the Prieuré de Sion can. On the basis of their written hints and their personal conversation with us, we are prepared to believe that Sion does possess something—something that does in some way amount to "incontrovertible proof" of the hypothesis we have advanced. We do not know precisely what this proof might be. We can, however, make an educated guess.

  If our hypothesis is correct, Jesus’ wife and offspring (and he could have fathered a number of children between the ages of sixteen or seventeen and his supposed death), after fleeing the Holy Land, found refuge in the south of France, and in a Jewish community there preserved their lineage. During the fifth century this lineage appears to have intermarried with the royal line of the Franks, thus engendering the Merovingian dynasty. In A.D. 496 the Church made a pact with this dynasty, pledging itself in perpetuity of the Merovingian bloodline—presumably in the full knowledge of that bloodline’s true identity. This would explain why Clovis was offered the status of Holy Roman Emperor, of "new Constantine," and why he was not created king but only recognized as such.

  When the Church colluded in Dagobert’s assassination and the subsequent betrayal of the Merovingian bloodline, it rendered itself guilty of a crime that could be neither rationalized nor expunged. It could only be suppressed. It would have had to be suppressed—for a disclosure of the Merovingians’ real identity would hardly have strengthened Rome’s position against her enemies.

  Despite all efforts to eradicate it, Jesus’ bloodline—or at any rate, the Merovin
gian bloodline—survived. It survived in part through the Carolingians, who clearly felt more guilty about their usurpation than did Rome and who sought to legitimize themselves by dynastic alliances with Merovingian princesses. But more significantly it survived through Dagobert’s son, Sigisbert, whose descendants in- cluded Guillem de Gellone, ruler of the Jewish kingdom of Septimania, and eventually Godfroi de Bouillon. With Godfroi’s capture of Jerusalem in 1099 Jesus’ lineage would have regained its rightful heritage—the heritage conferred upon it in Old Testament times.

  It is doubtful that Godfroi’s true pedigree was as secret during the time of the Crusades as Rome would have wished it to be. Given the Church’s hegemony, there could not, of course, have been an overt disclosure. But it is probable that rumors, traditions, and legends were rife; and these would seem to have found their most prominent expression in such tales as that of Lohengrin, for example, Godfroi’s mythical ancestor—and, naturally, in the romances of the Holy Grail.

  If our hypothesis is correct, the Holy Grail would have been at least two things simultaneously. On the one hand, it would have been Jesus’ bloodline and descendants—the "Sang Raal," the "Real" or "Royal" blood of which the Templars, created by the Prieuré de Sion, were appointed guardians. At the same time the Holy Grail would have been, quite literally, the receptacle or vessel that received and contained Jesus’ blood. In other words it would have been the womb of the Magdalen—and by extension, the Magdalen herself. From this the cult of the Magdalen, and it was promulgated during the Middle Ages, would have arisen—and been confused with the cult of the Virgin. It can be proved, for instance, that many of the famous "Black Virgins" or "Black Madonnas" were early in the Christian era shrines not to the Virgin but to the Magdalen—and they depict a mother and child. It has also been argued that the Gothic cathedrals—those majestic stone replicas of the womb dedicated to "Notre Dame"—were also, as Le Serpent rouge states, shrines to Jesus’ consort rather than to his mother.

  The Holy Grail, then, would have symbolized both Jesus’ bloodline and the Magdalen, from whose womb that bloodline issued. But it may have been something else as well, In A.D. 70, during the great revolt in Judaea, Roman legions under Titus sacked the temple of Jerusalem. The pillaged treasure of the temple is said to have found its way eventually to the Pyrenees; and M. Plantard, in his conversation with us, stated that this treasure was in the hands of the Prieuré de Sion today. But the temple of Jerusalem may have contained more than the treasure plundered by Titus’ centurions. In ancient Judaism religion and politics were inseparable. The Messiah was to be a priest-king whose authority encompassed spiritual and secular domains alike. It is thus likely, indeed probable, that the temple housed official records pertaining to Israel’s royal line—the equivalents of the birth certificates, marriage licenses, and other relevant data concerning any modern royal or aristocratic family. If Jesus was indeed "King of the Jews," the temple is almost certain to have contained copious information relating to him. It may even have contained his body—or at least his tomb, once his body was removed from the temporary tomb of the Gospels.

  There is no indication that Titus, when he plundered the temple in A.D. 70, obtained anything in any way relevant to Jesus. Such material, if it existed, might of course have been destroyed. On the other hand, it might also have been hidden; and Titus’ soldiers, interested only in booty, might not have bothered to look for it. For any priest in the temple at the time, there would have been one obvious course of action. Seeing a phalanx of centurions advancing upon him, he would have left them the gold, the jewels, the material treasure they expected to find. And he would have hidden, perhaps beneath the temple, the items that were of greater consequence— items relating to the rightful king of Israel, the acknowledged Messiah, and the royal family.

  By 1100 Jesus’ descendants would have risen to prominence in Europe and, through Godfroi de Bouillon, in Palestine as well. They themselves would have known their pedigree and ancestry. But they might not have been able to prove their identity to the world at large; and such proof may well have been deemed necessary for their subsequent designs. If it were known that such proof existed, or even possibly existed, in the precincts of the temple, no effort would have been spared to find it. This would explain the role of the Knights Templar—who under a cloak of secrecy undertook excavations beneath the temple in the so-called Stables of Solomon. On the basis of the evidence we examined, there would seem to be little question that the Knights Templar were in fact sent to the Holy Land—with the express purpose of finding something. And on the basis of the evidence we examined, they would seem to have accomplished their mission. They would seem to have found what they were sent to find, and to have brought it back to Europe. What became of it then remains a mystery. But there seems little question that under the auspices of Bertrand de Blanchefort, fourth grand master of the Order of the Temple, something was concealed in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Château—something for which a contingent of German miners was imported, under the most stringent security, to excavate and construct a hiding place. One can only speculate about what might have been concealed there. It may have been Jesus’ mummified body. It may have been the equivalent, so to speak, of Jesus’ marriage license and/or the birth certificates of his children. It may have been something of comparably explosive import. Any or all of these items might have been referred to as the Holy Grail. Any or all of these items might, by accident or design, have passed to the Cathar heretics and comprised part of the mysterious treasure of Montségur.

  Through Godfroi and Baudouin de Bouillon a "royal tradition" is said to have existed—which, because it was "founded on the Rock of Sion," equaled in status the foremost dynasties of Europe. If—as the New Testament and later Freemasonry maintain—the "Rock of Sion" is synonymous with Jesus, that assertion would suddenly make sense; indeed it would be, if anything, an understatement.

  Once installed on the throne of the kingdom of Jerusalem, the Merovingian dynasty could sanction and even encourage hints about its true ancestry. This would explain why the Grail romances appeared precisely when and where they did, and why they were so explicitly associated with the Knights Templar. In time, once its position in Palestine was consolidated, the "royal tradition" descended from Godfroi and Baudouin would probably have divulged its origins. The king of Jerusalem would then have taken precedence over all the monarchs of Europe, and the patriarch of Jerusalem would have supplanted the Pope. Displacing Rome, Jerusalem would then have become the true capital of Christendom, and perhaps of much more than Christendom. For if Jesus were acknowledged as a mortal prophet, as a priest-king and legitimate ruler of the line of David, he might well have become acceptable to both Muslims and Jews. As king of Jersualem, his lineal descendant would then have been in a position to implement one of the primary tenets of Templar policy—the reconciliation of Christianity with Judaism and Islam.

  Historical circumstances, of course, never allowed matters to reach this point. The Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem never consolidated its position. Beleaguered on every side by Muslim armies, unstable in its own government and administration, it never attained the strength and internal security it needed to survive—still less to assert its supremacy over the crowns of Europe and the Church of Rome. The grandiose design foundered, and with the loss of the Holy Land in 1291 it collapsed completely. The Merovingians were once again without a crown And the Knights Templar were not only redundant but also expendable.

  In the centuries that followed the Merovingians—aided and/or directed and/or protected by the Prieuré de Sion—made repeated attempts to regain their heritage, but these attempts were confined to Europe. They seem to have involved at least three interrelated but essentially distinct programs. One was the creation of a psychological atmosphere, a clandestine tradition intended to erode the spiritual hegemony of Rome—a tradition that found expression in Hermetic and esoteric thought, in the Rosicrucian manifestos and similar writings, in certain rites of Freemaso
nry, and, of course, in the symbols of Arcadia and the underground stream. A second program entailed political machination, intrigue, and, if feasible, an overt seizure of power—the techniques employed by the Guise and Lorraine families in the sixteenth century and by the architects of the Fronde in the seventeenth. A third program by which the Merovingians sought to regain their heritage was dynastic intermarriage.

  On first consideration it might seem that such Byzantine procedures would have been unnecessary; it might seem that the Merovingians—if they were indeed descended from Jesus—would have had no trouble establishing their supremacy. They needed only to disclose and establish their real identity, and the world would acknowledge them. In fact, however, things would not have been so simple. Jesus himself was not recognized by the Roman empire. When it was expedient to do so, the Church had no compunction in sanctioning the murder of Dagobert and the overthrow of his bloodline. A premature disclosure of their pedigree would not have guaranteed success for the Merovingians. On the contrary, it would have been much more likely to misfire—to engender factional strife, precipitate a crisis in faith, and provoke challenges from both the Church and other secular potentates. Unless they were well entrenched in positions of power, the Merovingians could not have withstood such repercussions—and the secret of their identity, their trump card as it were, would have been played and lost forever. Given the realities of both history and politics, this trump card could not have been used as a stepping stone to power. It could only be played when power had already been acquired—played, in other words, from a position of strength.

  In order to reestablish themselves, therefore, the Merovingians were obliged to resort to more conventional procedures—the accepted procedures of the particular age in question. On at least four occasions these procedures came frustratingly close to success and were thwarted only by miscalculation, by force of circumstance, or by the totally unforseen. In the sixteenth century, for example, the house of Guise very nearly managed to seize the French throne. In the seventeenth century the Fronde very nearly succeeded in keeping Louis XIV from the throne and supplanting him with a representative of the house of Lorraine. In the late nineteenth century blueprints were laid for a species of revived Holy League, which would have unified Catholic Europe—Austria, France, Italy, and Spain— under the Hapsburgs. These plans were thwarted by the erratic and aggressive behavior of both Germany and Russia—who provoked a constant shift of alliances among the major powers and eventually precipitated a war that toppled all the continental dynasties.