In his 1993 book The Sign and the Seal : The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, Graham Hancock asserts that the the word grail, or graal is actually a referance to the Ark of the Covenant itself. I highly suggest this work to anyone with further interest in this subject.
Just an editorial nit to pick: Cecil refers to the Grail as a “McGuffin,” when the word is properly spelled (according to the OED) “MacGuffin.” Hitchcock himself spells it “MacGuffin” in his book-length interview with Francois Truffaut. I learned this from a recent Roger Ebert column answering this question.
The grail is mentioned in texts regarding the Knights Templar as having been protected by them and taken to Europe. It is not certain what it was but a recent TV documentary in the UK suggested that the success of its protection, from both the Romans and later the Catholic Church, was that no one but the Templars who protected it new what it was.
The suggestions made were that it was the actual blood of Christ, this is strongly held among Templar researchers. This thought was extended to suggest that the Grail was the seed of Christ, which had resulted from an assignation with Mary Magdalene, and that the Grail was in fact Christ’s child.
I personally feel that to be too far fetched, but my point is that historians are still seeking the Grail or at least places it was hidden. There is one Templar site in France where it is admitted it was stored until the late 1800’s before being taken to a Templar shrine in Scotland.
I note that Cec didn’t mention the other theory which I read in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (20 years ago so my recall may be rusty) that “Grail” might actually be a corrution of Le sang réal (or something - see, I told you so) - “the royal blood” - i.e. the bloodline of Christ, he having survived crucifixion and escaped on the third day, to have progeny with Mary Magdalene. It was this descent that the Knights Templar were trying to cover up.
Or is that so far into the realms of tinfoil haberdashery that Cecil wouldn’t even countenance talking about it?
Welcome to the boards Ryan Mahoney. Enjoy your stay.
And welcome as well to kgladstone, who has submitted not only his first post but his first simul-post. Woo-hoo!!
-Christian
jjimm, is that the book which says the royal family Andrew in Scotland is descended from Christ and his brothers and sisters?
That Templar / sacred-bloodline stuff is pure bullshit, created to separate the naïve from their money.
Cecil has the right of it. The Grail is a literary phenomenon, not a religious one. There is no evidence that there was ever an actual grail cult.
In any case, according to the mainstream Grail literature, it’s gone, now.
(Of course, if the actual Cup of the Last Supper were to turn up, it would be a very sacred relic indeed to all Christians who believe in that sort of thing. But that’s something else.)
Zoot must have turned on the castle’s spotlight, which, I just remembered, is grail-shaped.
Bad, bad Zoot.
I would recommend the book as well, but only for entertainment purposes. Hancock can spin an interesting yarn, but his sources lack credibility.
I should have qualified my response, yes Hancock does make a few huge reaches (Especially his ability to discern hidden messages in the artwork of medevel French cathedrals), but it is his conclusions drawn from Le Conte du Graal that made it even worth mentioning in regards to this column. Other than that, file Hancock next to Erich Van Daniken.
The most exquisite gem for me, after having the misfortune to pick this book up at an airport, was the dedication to “Prince Michael of Albania, my generous patron” or some such glurge.
And for the Grand Finale: the one true descendant of Jesus Christ living on this planet today is… drumroll please… Prince Michael of Albania!
Amazing!
Um… probably - IIRC there were a lot of people on the sang réal list, including da Vinci, Michelangelo, and various heads of state. Probably members of the Illuminati too…
Now now. We all know that the Illuminati is just a fiction. It doesn’t really exist at all.
[sub]fnord. really.[/sub]
The OED does not dictate which spellings are “proper”; that’s the job of English writers collectively. Besides which, I don’t know about your OED, but neither term is in mine, and I’m using the unabdridged, umpteen-volume second edition.
I recommend you track down a newer edition, or take a look at the online (most up-to-date) version if you have access, since I’m looking at a full OED entry for it. Its earliest documentation for “MacGuffin” is from a 1939 lecture by Hitchcock, and also notes the Truffaut interview I mentioned earlier. You are correct to point out that the OED does not “dictate” preferred spellings, and in fact includes the McGuffin (and maguffin) variation, but I’d suggest that the person who coined the word should be looked to for correct spelling.
Cecil leaves these details to me. I found the following on World Wide Words at http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-mcg1.htm
I have rarely seen the “Mac” spelling myself and so went with “Mc.”
Ed, thanks for the clarification. I was being swayed by Hitchcock’s original usage; but, as psychonaut notes, it’s the usage and not the coinage that determines “preferred” spelling.
Well, I guess there must have been some sort of cup used for Jesus’s Passover dinner- “the last supper”. And I suppose it could have been kept as a rememberance of Jesus by his disciples. So, I guess there was something that could be called a “Holy grail”. However, the Grail of Myth & legend is exactly that- myth & legend. If the original Cup was kept, there seems to be no record.
The thing that REALLY annoys me about Hancock is that his occult psuedoscience books are often filed under “history”, whereas they are just slightly better that Van Daanikan, etc
Actually, the derivation of holy grail from sang real and thus the royal blood or bloodline of Jesus is the only way to make sense of the story. Especially since nobody knows what a grail is or was, nor what the etymology of the word is.