Perillos and the enigma of the Grail accounts

 

Saunière’s model

The model landscape – of what at first sight seems to be Jerusalem – shows two tombs: that of Jesus and that of Joseph of Arimathea. The Bible mentions the existence of only one tomb: the tomb of Joseph was used for the burial of Jesus, from which he rose from the death. Saunière therefore made a major error; as he was a priest, we must assume he made this error on purpose.

Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail

Joseph of Arimathea is an unimportant character in the Bible. But in the Grail legend, he has attained an important status. The first to augment the role of Joseph – and make a connection with the Grail – was Robert de Boron. In his Grail account, Joseph of Arimathea is the main character. He is identified as a decurio, a military title. In a later account, Perlesvaus, Joseph is said to have served Pilate, the man who condemned Jesus to death, for seven years. When Jesus is dead, he asks to receive his body, and places Jesus in his own tomb.
He is also said to have received the Grail. What this specifically is, depends on the account. In one account, it is the platter of bread from the Last Supper, given to Pilate, who gives it to Joseph. In another account, it is a mysterious host, that feeds Joseph while he is in prison.

The Tomb of Christ and Mass

Gerbert de Montreuil writes in the last continuation of The Story of the Grail, i.e. Chrétien’s account, that Mass was “the most glorious of mysteries, and the most precious. There you can see the very body of Jesus Christ when the priest makes the sacrament and holds it in his hands… If you believe truly and hear mass willingly, I tell you on my soul that you will… learn all the secrets of the lance and the Grail.”

Though little known, Joseph played important role in Mass. In ca. 850, Amalarius of Metz stated that the deacon who helped the priest to raise up the chalice was comparable to Joseph of Arimathea: “The deacon who places the covered chalice on the altar signifies Joseph of Arimathea, who took down Christ’s body, covered his face with a cloth, laid the body in the sepulchre, and closed the tomb with a stone. The covering of the chalice represents the sindonem mundam in which Joseph wrapped Christ’s body; the chalice is the sepulchre; and the paten is the stone closing the tomb.”
The theme was consequently approved by the Church, and hence we have a series of interesting identifications:

The Tomb of Jesus has become identified with the Chalice, as the host was the Body of Christ, inside the chalice – and hence inside the Tomb. The deacon assisting is Joseph of Arimathea, the covering is identified with the shroud and the paten is identified with the stone closing the tomb. Finally, in mass the altar itself was often seen as another representation of the tomb of Christ.

Hints?

We need to ask the question: did Saunière play with the image of Joseph of Arimathea, because it would direct people to Perillos? Is it a play on words? We cannot call it “logic”, but it is a series of careful deductions: from Joseph of Arimathea, to the Grail, to accounts of Perilous, to Perillos? We can only wonder… and Saunière will never confirm or deny.

There are other possible inroads into the mystery. Albrecht in Titurel states that Titurel descended from Trojans. His grandfather Parillus converts to Christianity. The name is similar to Perillos and Perilous. In the account, Titurel tells the story of the Grail to Prester John. When he is finished, he begs Prester John that it should be concealed from him, so that he may die. This comes to pass, and he is buried in a splendid tomb. Hence, we have a tomb and a place of concealment for the Grail.

They are all variations on a theme, and all predate the rise to fame of the Perillos family, which occurred from the early to middle part of the 14th century. Were the lords of Perillos familiar with these stories? Did they think their land was at the origin of these accounts, or did they use these accounts and mould them into their history? Alternatively, was it only Saunière, whom we know was knowledge on Grail matters, who played with this rich canvas of material, to work it into his model?

A modern addition

Let us now move towards a modern myth. What most people often forget is that the Priory of Sion is a myth of the 20th Century. It is not a myth of the Merovingians, or the Middle Ages; it was constructed and promoted by the likes of Pierre Plantard and his entourage. It is, for this story, unimportant whether or not the myth contains truth.
It was a myth promoted by Gerard de Sede and fortuitously picked up by Henry Lincoln, who transported the myth outside of its original territory of destination: France. It was in the UK that a magazine, The Unexplained, picked up the consternation surrounding the topic, and added to it. In the early 1980s, it wrote:

“More than one of the romances of the Holy Grail tells how Sir Gawain is overtaken by a terrible storm, and takes refuge in the Atre Perileus, the Chapel Perilous. Some 30 miles (50 kilometres) across the hills from Rennes-le-Château is the tiny village of Opoul, almost certainly the lands from which Francis d’Hautpoul derived his name. Take a narrow winding road that climbs among the crags behind the village and you will come to an ancient chapel, above which loom the gaunt ruins of – Chateau Perillos. Perhaps there is something in the theory that links the development of the Grail legend – and the bizarre mystery with which it is associated – with the country around Rennes.”

The author of the above, Brian Innes, made the same mistake as the modern tourist: Castle Perillos is actually “Castle Opoul”. The actual Perillos castle is a very small castle, located in the village. Did Innes make the same connection that Saunière made? Specifically, it is the tombstone of Marie Hautpoul that is said to have provided a vital clue for Saunière. Perhaps that clue had nothing to do with the tomb itself, but more to do with the connection between that person and the village of Opoul – and by extension to Perillos.

Filip Coppens