Conference hydra::dejavu

    I haven't read much beyond unkind reviews (even in pro-paranormal
    publications).
    
    However, I suspect I can deduce the origin of the book title:  The
    initial name of the Holy Grail was the "Sangreal."  "Sang Real"
    translates into "Royal [as in 'Kingly'] Blood."  The connnection
    should be obvious.
    
    Grail legends are very interesting, because there were several
    interpretations (and one long, dry, dusty book) on the subject.
     Basically, the Grail was either a cup used at the Last Supper,
    a platter in which the paschal lamb was served at that meal, or
    (oddly enough) a stone or stones.  The Grail was, in the Arthurian
    legends, visible ordinarily only to those who were pure of heart
    and soul.  A very beautiful tale on it, full of Medieval Christian
    religious symbolism, can be found in Mallory's _Morte D'Arthur_
    as "the Quest for the Sangreal."  Well worth reading.
    
    If Mallory's tradition it to believed, the Grail was a vessel of
    some sort.  After Galahad had achieved the quest and had lived for
    a time as a king, he grasped it and was visibly transported to Heaven.
    Then a great hand came from the sky and removed the Grail and an
    accompanying lance, since apparently they were beyond the worth
    of the living (left) to behold.
    
    So much for legend.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .1:
    
    I forgot to mention the dry, dusty book.  It was called _The Holy
    Grail_ (or sometimes _the Secret of the Holy Grail_) and was authored
    by Arthur Waite, he of the Rider-Waite Tarot cards (Waite was a
    member of the Order of the Golden Dawn, an occult society that included
    as initiate-members both Sax Rhomer [of Dr. Fu Manchu fame] and
    Aleister Crowley of much occult fame).  The book is so scholarly
    it creaks, and one has to read it twice to get a full understanding
    of all the notations.
    
    However, if you want a really in-depth discussion about the Grail....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: I think it's out of print.  But if the Boston Public Library
    doesn't have it, the Harvard or Tufts libraries might.  Just remember:
    it's  l o n g  and d r y.
    
    -S
    

    re .3:
    
    Robert Graves' story was _King Jesus_, which, to a Christian, is
    blasphemous; however, while I am a Christian, I enjoyed it very
    much.  For best results, it should be read after reading Graves'
    _Hercules, My Shipmate_, which is the story of the voyage of the
    _Argo_ on the quest for the Golden Fleece, to get the right mind-set.
    Graves was not only a Pagan (and hence believed strongly about what
    he wrote in these stories) but had a first-class literary mind,
    when he took the trouble to write something.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I have read the book you mention.  It does seem to be in a rather
    "gossipy" style.  However, there were a number of things that really
    I had never considered until reading that book.  For example, the
    idea (which I now think should have been obvious to me) of some
    people of Jesus's time thinking strictly in POLITICAL terms about
    the promised KINGDOM.  The type of maneuvering that those people
    would surely be doing to advance the "Earthly Kingdom" scheme. 
    The fact that Rabbis are ALLOWED and EXPECTED to marry.  The fact
    that Jesus was, in the beginning at least, considered a devout follower
    of Jewish beliefs and considered a teacher (Rabbi).
    
    Those points just mentioned could lead to some interesting
    extrapolations.
    
    What if he was married and had children?
    What if there are direct descendants?
    What about the fact that to me at least, Europe seems to still
    consider royalty and bloodlines as important.  And therefore maybe
    some people do worry about the remote possibility of a real and
    provable claim?
    
    So anyway, those were my reactions.  An interesting tickler.

    Re .5:
    
    
    >        Those points just mentioned could lead to some interesting
>    extrapolations.
>    
>    What if he was married and had children? 
    
    They almost certainly would have been mentioned in scriptures. 
    
    
>    What if there are direct descendants?
    
    That requires children.  Even if we hypothecate that there were
    children who were concealed because of possible slaughter by the
    Romans (a la Herod), by the time Constantine Christianized Rome,
    one or more would have come forth to claim  the "kingdom on Earth."
    
>    What about the fact that to me at least, Europe seems to still
>    consider royalty and bloodlines as important.
    
    That's how a book like this can gain any kind of a popularity ...
    it's a fascinating thought for people hung up on royalty.  
    
>                                          ...    And therefore maybe
>    some people do worry about the remote possibility of a real and
>    provable claim?                                 
    
    What's to worry about?  Indeed, any child of Jesus would likely
    have made his or her move about the time Rome was disintegrating.
    How much ruling royalty is there left in Europe these days??
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.