“The wisdom of the ancients devised a way of inducing men to study truth by means of pious frauds, the delicate Minerva secretly lurking beneath the mask of pleasure.”
-Richard de Bury, High Chancellor of England, A Vindication of Poetry.
A re-examination of the Parchments and some of the characters in the Rennes le Chateau story.
In a publication that forms part of the documents, usually known as the Priory documents and widely regarded as forgeries, there is a strange poem called Le Serpent Rouge (The Red Serpent). It consists of 13 stanzas or verses[i1] each with a drawing of a sign of the zodiac accompanying each verse. In the verse accompanying the sign for Sagittarius it says the following.
Returning again to the white hill, the sky opens its floodgates. Close to me a presence, its feet in the water, like one who has just received the mark of baptism, I turn away again to the east, facing me I see unwinding endlessly by his coils, the enormous RED SERPENT mentioned in the parchments, rigid and bitter, the huge, unleashed beast at the foot of the white mountain beast becomes scarlet with anger.
There is no RED SERPENT directly mentioned in any of the parchments that have been placed in the public domain. If this is “mentioned in the parchments” containing the coded biblical text and the encoded messages why has the alleged forger signally failed to complete this cross reference? These so-called forgers have been so meticulous so far, why this glaring omission?
Many books have been written about this priest Bérenger Saunière and his apparent sudden wealth. As has been already mentioned some even try to make out that the story was all a hoax by three French individuals out to make some money in the 1960s, these culprits being Pierre Plantard de Saint Clair, Philippe Louis Henri Marie, (9th) Marquis de Chérisey and Gérard-Marie de Sède. This is a simple answer for the masses that are too busy getting on with their lives to engage their critical mind and to carry out the large amounts of research required. An examination of the evidence leads one to think that this explanation is far too trite and simple, for one thing these so-called forgers hardly made any money. Those who don’t know the difference between the ‘simplest answer’ and ‘the most acceptable answer’ usually invoke an old favourite security blanket called ‘Occam’s razor’; the trouble is that the simplest answer is not usually the most acceptable. A classic example is used to illustrate this here: If one sees a object in an elevated position in the sky and one cannot identify it; the simplest answer is that it is an Unidentified Flying Object; however this explanation is in no way the most acceptable answer, it carries a lot of baggage. If this object didn’t come from down here it must have come from up there; welcome to the correct use of Occam’s razor and the simplest answer. It is clear that most detractors have never set foot inside Saunière’s church and been beguiled by his word games and strange imagery or if they have they’ve gone in with prior prejudiced ideas and see only that which they want to see. There are blatant omissions from his church that in themselves ought to provoke questions. Saunière’s diary actually says that he is dealing with a Secret and always this point is sidestepped or given some ridiculous explanation where extra, made-up, information is appended in total violation of the facts as they are presented to us. They choose the laziest answer or even change the facts to suit and they ignore vital information; anything that doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas is simply ignored. What I referring to here is the instance of facts being changed is the over this word Secret in Saunière’s diary. Some say that he really meant Secrétaire; this of course is a total guess and not a very good guess to boot. There are several problems with this, most notably that there is no such French word as Secretaire there is however a word Secrétaire and no natural French writer would leave out the accent above the central ‘e’ even if he was making an abbreviation. Also he had already mentioned Cros who was the Bishops Secretary. Why would Saunière mention Cros by name and then remind himself of his job only to then to proceed to abbreviate it? Not only this but Saunière never explains why he saw or considered these people if the word only means Secretary. This is an example of how facts often get altered in order for them to fit a safe hypothesis and incredibly one can find oneself arguing a fact against a might-have-done perpetrated by wishful thinkers uneasy with anything remotely controversial and with no evidence whatsoever to back up this “might-have-meant” of Saunière’s . No sorry people, Saunière said the word SECRET in his diary and this is a demonstrable FACT. I’m aware that this may ease one out of one’s comfort zone but facts are facts and the fact is that there is also a book written by Jean Girou from 1936[I A2] describing the villagers speaking of Saunière and his treasure.
Everywhere still new revelations appear, someone may
indeed be feeding this information but one has to ask why they are doing
this and even if this is found to be true it should not be taken as a reason
to curtail all further study into this. When one examines the detail one is
immediately engulfed into something which gives a feeling that there’s a
mystery that is almost within one’s grasp but at the same time just out of
reach, the closer you get the more the sacred object you are reaching for,
the truth, seems to recede from your grasp. One is drawn to the Grail
legends by this concept, is this where one finds the real meaning of the
Holy Grail? Something where in searching for a fantastic and awesome
possession that you cannot quite understand, all one eventually finds is
oneself? Certainly a study of this will draw the inquisitive mind into areas
they would not normally study and certainly they will be left with a greater
knowledge and indeed a greater intellect, even if they find story to be a
hoax. On a personal note my French has gone from stumbling schoolboy
standard to almost fluency as a direct result of studying this mystery; if
one has a passionate reason to study a language then it becomes easier. Some
people have told me that the Grail is what you personally want it to be. It
could indeed be but what is also true is that people in the past have
committed genocide for possession of it and chose death in order to protect
it. Like it or not this sacred object, be it real or merely an object of
spiritual reverence, is real enough to have caused modern dictators to send
armies to possess it and in particular into the area of
Adolph Hitler described religion as a means to control
the masses and certainly this appears to have been what was on the mind of
the Emperor Constantine the Great when he married together all the religions
of his empire in the 4th century. A close personal (shall we say)
acquaintance of Adolph Hitler, Walter Stein who knew him in his younger
days, described how Hitler became obsessed with the Habsburg Lance and the
tale of Parzival and the grail. The lance and the Grail were occult objects
which allegedly gave powers to those who possessed it; could possession of
the truth give one power? This Bleeding Lance and the Grail are inextricably
linked through the story of Parzival. Stein, who later defected to the
Allies and became the occult advisor to Winston Churchill during World War
Two, described how Hitler before WWI had, through his newfound interest in
this Lance and the occult, come under the influence of a detestable man
called Pretzsche. Around 1911 Hitler was working as a, none too successful,
Sometimes the real story is not so much about an object
or even treasure but in people’s reaction to a mystery. However when we
start to explore this more deeply we find that people gave this object a
more material significance, for this story eventually leads to a specific
area where even in the local names one discovers that the Grail was a very
real object to some people with a quite unexpected link to not only
Saunière’s church but to another enigmatic early 20th century
priest in Brittany. Also clues in the story will lead to the
So we have Saunière and his church placed in the heart of the ancient Cathar heresy that as we’ve seen is literally surrounded by esoteric grail legend and history. A place where the Holy Roman Church tried to stamp out this Christian Sect called the Cathars. Legend says that these Cathars are said to have possessed an object and this has been wrongly interpreted as the ‘Holy Grail’ largely because the actual historical facts and legends tie in so well.
In 1244 whilst besieged at the awesome
Rahn enjoyed a deep platonic friendship with Arthur Caussou, an old Ariegois who told Rahn of the legend of Esclarmonde de Foix (literally `light of crystal' of Foix). This is the beautiful pure maiden Repanse de Schoye, the bearer of the Grail in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival. According to this legend, on the evening of the fall of Montségur a young woman was given custody of the Grail that had been guarded by Cathar Parfaits[i4] . On receiving the Grail, Esclarmonde transformed herself into a dove and flew off towards the East.
If one is looking for a solution to this mystery,
ignoring these legends will result in failure to find anything. Whether it
suits ones comfortable belief system or not legends surrounding the Holy
Grail abound and seem particularly strong in the Ariège region to the west
of Rennes le Chateau and the
Additionally the Visigoth King Alaric who has a link with Solomon’s treasure and in particular the Table of Solomon is said by some to have journeyed down the road past Rennes le Chateau towards the chateau at Arques.
The influence of the Knights Templar is self-evidence
Last but not least we have the influence of megalithic
builders, possibly but not definitely under the influence of the Druids who
have mapped out this landscape for reason that was quite obviously for the
purpose of some undefined and suppressed religious significance. It should
be mentioned that Julius Caesar mentioned in De Bello Gallico that the
Druids had found the centre of the earth; could this have been around Rennes
le Chateau or perhaps another area of
Indeed we could exclude Saunière and certainly the Prieure de Sion and its members from the whole story of Rennes le Chateau and we would still have a story of mystery to deal with here, Saunière is merely the waving flag that drew us here in the first place.
This interest in the history of the area has been carried over to the twentieth century through the enigmatic contemporary of Saunière, Henry Boudet curé of the church of Rennes les Bains who in 1886 wrote that curious book called ‘La Vraie Langue Celtique et le Cromleck de Rennes-les-Bains’- The true Celtic Language and the Cromlech of Rennes les Bains, a curious book where Boudet seems to concentrate on the sounds of words irrespective of their originating country. This is a technique called ‘The Language of the Birds’ or the ‘Green Language’.[I A7]
A major character in early twentieth century stories of
the occult and palaeography was the brilliant young Emile Hoffet in Saint
Jean Jacques Olier, who was born in
Olier was an opponent of the Cardinal Mazarin, the much-hated regent for the young Louis XIII. Olier was a member of a political organization run by the Catholic Church called the Compagne du Saint-Sacrement, a real secret society that had a hermetic theme running through its entire literature. It was revealed in a recent interview with Gino Sandri, a supposed secretary of the Prieure de Sion, that Henri de Levis dissolved the Compagne du Saint-Sacrement in 1665 and some members moved over to the Prieure de Sion.
All of this has some intriguing connections to the area
around Rennes le Chateau. As we have mentioned in the previous chapter the
abbey at Alet les Bains and Nicolas Pavillon and one is reminded that
Saunière himself had previously had his first appointment of curé there. The
connections come through this 17th century former priest of Alet
les Bains called
Nicolas Pavillon[I11] .
Pavillon has been linked to “sordid
bargainings and royal blackmails” and “treasures
passing of hand in hand under Notre-Dame de Marceille”, the enigmatic
chapel to the north of Limoux. After mixing with the likes of Louis XIII and
Cardinal Richlieu, Pavillon is given the very worthy diocese of Auxerre but
he refuses it and chooses a much smaller diocese of Alet. On
Pavillon had been involved in a scandal over the
taxation of the diocese of Limoux and Alet that eventually ended with the
prosecution of two brothers on embezzlement charges. These brothers called
The Compagne du Saint-Sacrement, consisting of nine
initiates was the possible cause
of much unrest in
In 1639, Jérôme Le Royer de La Dauversière (director of the Compagne in La Flèche) told Jean-Jacques Olier that “God had destined him to the establishment of a seminary in the Saint-Sulpice parish in Paris”, a ‘prophecy’ that materialised three years later. But it appears that the creation of the Compagnie du Saint-Sulpice, the brainchild of Olier, was largely due to this other more secret organization called the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement.
The Compagne du Saint-Sacrement was formed in 1630 and
one is reminded for reference later that this is at a time when the French
painter Nicolas Poussin was in
other places according to times'. Why one never speaks about Millau,
Annemasse de Montrevel or
Let us speak, if you want, about a similar business. With the end of the French revolution, the Priory of Sion tries to obtain from Angélique Lenoir the restitution of certain acts. It then claims to have burned all papers under the Terror [of the revolution]. This is inaccurate because we know that it entrusted a part of it to the Count d'Antraigues. Why these precautions? What was the [secret motives of] Lenoir the Angelica? Why does it claim to have destroyed all papers, titles and manuscripts that it received? Andre Chénier and the Abbé Delille speak about documents of the
This testimony is vital and should not be dismissed and
the several points he has brought out will be discussed in more detail. He
mentions Annemasse and Millau; the former is where the Priory of Sion began
but Millau is where an opera singer involved in this mystery Emma Calvé, a
Martinist, lived at the
The Count d’Antraigues, who, according to Sandri, had
been entrusted with some documents, had been arrested by Napoléon
Bonaparte’s General Bernadotte at
Several other people are mentioned in this testimony by Sandri in particular Angélique Lenoir and Elizabeth Hautpoul. Angélique Lenoir had married Jean-Marie-Alexandre d’Hautpoul in 1781.
Perhaps one of the most interesting statements by Gino Sandri is about Béranger Saunière himself; He said:
“Béranger Saunière was in a place and he was used and handled by various networks to seek deposits”
This statement from Sandri is highly significant.
There was a seemingly unwarranted and unprecedented interest in this area of France in the late 1960s with regard to treasure stories and this is when it first came to the attention of the French general public in a newspaper article followed by a TV programme made by Robert Charroux for the French TV company ORTF who had apparently even excavated the graveyard at Rennes le Chateau and who had quoted a journalistic source from the time of Saunière about a treasure of some kind around Rennes le Chateau. It is important to note here that when they interviewed people who knew Saunière most of the villagers spoke of Saunière and his wealth but never spoke of any parchments, therefore the parchments are perhaps a later addition to this story. Later in the 1970s, the English speaking world was introduced to the story by a series of TV programmes for the BBC called Chronicle, one programme being interrupted by a power cut during the miners strike but seemingly caused more public and lasting interest than the strike itself. Eventually this series of programmes led to a best selling and epoch defining book called ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ written by Richard Leigh with research done by Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln. The prime mover for the introduction to the English-speaking world had been Henry Lincoln who in a former role had been a scriptwriter for TV programmes such as ‘Dr Who’ and ‘Emergency Ward 10’. Lincoln is also the author of some other excellent books on Rennes le Chateau namely ‘The Holy Place’, ‘The Key to the Sacred Pattern’ and a joint effort with Danish author and broadcaster Erling Haagensen which describes a pattern in churches conforming to sacred geometry on the Baltic Island of Bornholm. These books are highly recommended reading for the truth seeker who wishes further, more detailed, insight into this story.
It was from these books describing the Priory of Sion
that eventually Dan Brown took his inspiration for his best selling
fictional thriller ‘The Da Vinci
Code’ which was later to be made into a film starring Tom Hanks and the
talented French actress Audrey Tautou and directed by academy award winning
director Ron Howard. This book of fiction appeared to hit a zeitgeist that
was totally unpredicted and surprised most of us and it has moved the story
of Rennes le Chateau again back into the global eye. Brown’s suggestion is
that a Secret Society, first introduced to the English speaking world by the
BBC in their Chronicle TV series during the 1970s. This Secret Society was
apparantly known as the Prieure de Sion, and has allegedly controlled world
affairs for two thousand years and that the Patron of Saunière’s church Mary
Magdalene was in fact Jesus’ wife who bore children by him and started a
bloodline that has been protected by this Secret Society. The reader will
later discover that, true or not, this is merely scratching the surface and
that the name of the most secret society may not be entirely correct and
is merely a recently formed front. Indeed nobody was aware of the Priory of
Sion before the 1960s, but everyone is aware of the Zionist political
movement which does indeed have a stated desire to control the world from a
Zionist state in the former
It is perhaps worth a few sentences to dwell on this
book of fiction for it seems that there are easily missed small hints in
both the book and the film that Dan Brown and the screenwriter for the film
that they may well have been aware of some deeper mystery. For example in
the film when the Archbishop
goes to a secret meeting with the rest of the Opus Dei in an astronomical
observatory in the Apennine mountains. Although it doesn’t say this is most
likely the observatory at
To construct a hoax with the small oddities included as we have seen so far would not just be a waste of time but would expose the hoax to possible discovery by increasing the chance of a mistake. Why make a hoax more complicated than it need be? Indeed the available confirmed facts are that we have evidence for the Secret Society in question starting life in 1956, but the general knowledge of this Society didn’t start to materialise until at best ten years later. Indeed the stated modus operendi of the Prieure de Sion from 1956 was to deal with housing claims, if this is true then one would scarcely feel that the name Priory of Sion would be appropriate.
One has to admire the hoaxers, if that’s what they were, for their staying power. One would normally expect a hoax to deliver its rewards much earlier than ten years. It seems they had no people dropping out of the scam or spilling the beans before they got their hoax going; Dedication indeed. One curious aspect surrounds what has been called the ‘Poussin Tomb’. The connection between Nicolas Poussin’s Les Bergere d’Arcadie and Rennes le Chateau was first revealed in 1964 and yet they did not reveal that a similar looking tomb had been at Les Pontils, close to Rennes le Chateau, until some eight years later. What kind of hoaxer reveals clues to their hoax in eight-year intervals?
If you wish to hoax a person all you need is a powerful hook, tell them what they want to hear, and then any small detail you may wish to include would probably not ever be noticed or the hoax victim would uncritically fill in the gaps themselves. The point here is that there is no need for detail, when someone has a predefined belief then most will ignore any counter evidence they may be presented to them. One of the greatest hoaxes of all time was the Piltdown man hoax, all that was needed here was to construct something that people had been itching to discover and then you have a hoax that goes on un-investigated for forty years, academic dogma deterring any further investigation usually through intimidation until a rare, free thinking individual took another brave new look at the evidence. The lesson here is to continue to question everything and never to use your own data to prove your own data and always be suspicious of someone stepping out of the shadows and telling you precisely what you want to hear.
The story of Rennes le Chateau carries large amounts of minutiae that lend it the probability that, although some details (like names and identities) have most likely been concocted, even stolen, methods one would expect from a secret society anyway, the underlying story is superficially sound and has a vein of truth running through it or to be more accurate; the truth as they see it. If the hook was merely Bérenger Saunière and the parchments then there is ample evidence from other sources to suggest that there was a story here long before any supposed modern intervention. However there does appear to be a suggestion that some particular aspect of this story was being deliberately pushed into the public eye and that somebody somewhere wants this story out. There may even be some attempt to lead researchers down false trials. That it is obvious that this includes more than one person then this would mean some kind of co-ordinated effort by some kind of society and that this society seems to ‘hover’ in the shadows feeding information to any who would publish it, we are indeed talking about a ‘Secret Society’ here.
The reader may be amused at the way I have spelled out this obvious conclusion, but I do this because of the way detractors of this story seem to baulk at the idea that ‘Secret Societies’ even exist today and have existed for millennia and that a small number of people elevated to positions of power and influence can control the release of information or indeed suppress it should it suit some agenda they support. President John F Kennedy gave a speech to the press association in 1961 warning the world of the influence of secret societies, he was assassinated less than two years afterwards.
Yes even faced with overwhelming evidence academia
somehow turn a blind eye to facts that are staring them in the face, facts
that have been proven to be demonstrable again and again. That religious
dogma can exist for millennia virtually unchanged are proven by example;
that alternative beliefs violently suppressed by this same religious dogma
may also exist for a similar length of time is possible and even probable,
given what we know about the Holy Roman Church’s opposition to alternative
beliefs. We know that the church eliminated other doctrines by force and
intimidation and the use of the Inquisition is well known, particularly
within the area of the
Is the Grail the hidden truth of these other beliefs? When the church controls everything and has been recorded as killing thousands in this area in the name of God then one should not be surprised to see an alternative belief driven underground and communicating in code and symbolism.
Several versions as to how these parchments were supposedly found by Saunière seem to exist. The story that Saunière found them in a cracked altar pillar on the renovation of his church seems to have come from the original ORTF programme and French author Gérard de Sède. Noel Corbu, who took ownership of Saunière’s Villa Bethania and who came from nearby Esperaza, had apparently started this. The story was then echoed in Gérard de Sède’s book called ‘Le Tresor Maudit’ – The Accursed Treasure who was first inspired to write about the Templars by a chance meeting with a former guard at the Castle at Gisors. What became clear is that de Sède was being fed information from another shadowy source and that he did not really understand what it was he was writing, the mediator for this information source seems to have been a man called Pierre Plantard de Saint Clair.
De Sède has been described as being genuinely surprised at what other people have uncovered using the information he himself had deposited. For example it appears that de Sède never noticed the original simple code in one of the parchments he himself had published in his book. It makes no logical sense that he should not even mention it and it is my belief that he had come to rely on some shadowy person or organisation feeding him the information to the extent that he never drew back and gave the nuances of the story he was reporting a single moment of individual thought. In one instance (explained by Henry Lincoln in his book ‘The Holy Place’) de Sède describes one of the ‘Stations of the Cross’ from the Church at Rennes le Chateau with a strange and unexplained caption underneath. De Sède clearly doesn’t understand what it is he’s put down here and it took Henry Lincoln to put an interpretation to it. Stories that de Sède practiced a form of literal art where stories were made to look real is unfounded and amounts to no more than a convenient guess by detractors, there is no evidence that any of these individuals practiced this art.
The style of the sentence is in ‘The Language of the
Birds’ the changing of meaning by the use of phonetics or the sound of
the word to make another word. But these Stations of the Cross in the
Gérard de Sède quotes in one of his books that ‘The imaginary is something that tends to become true’ but is this de Sède making the imaginary come true or is it Beringer Saunière and Henry Boudet making the imaginary come true. This shadowy source of information later turned out to be this man who called himself Pierre Plantard de St Clair and assisted by Philippe de Chérisey, a disenfranchised Count who preferred to call himself Marquis who had been a former actor. However further detailed investigation into these two characters merely brings one to the conclusion that these two were also being used.
The story surrounding the parchments is inconsistent and it is certainly true that there is no direct evidence beyond hearsay that Saunière found any parchments at all. It would be easy to dismiss this as someone somewhere ‘Making the imaginary come true’ but as I have already said you can take Beringer Saunière and the parchments out of this story and you will still have a mystery. Patterns in the immediate landscape have been found however this phenomenon is not merely confined to the area around Rennes le Chateau. Numerous megaliths can be found throughout this area that is dominated by the Rennes le Chateau hilltop village. Saunière’s contemporary at Rennes les Bains Henry Boudet wrote about the Cromlech in a book called La Vraie Langue Celtique et le Cromleck de Rennes-les-Bains. These will prove to be the key to this mystery but first let us examine in detail the parchments supposedly found by Saunière.
To the left is one of the parchments that have been allegedly found by Beringer Saunière inside the cracked pillar. This parchment carries many tantalising clues including a triangle in the corner that resembles one from a sketch by Leonardo da Vinci. The text reveals a code that is childishly simple as the relevant coded letters can be seen clearly raised above the body of text, which reveals the phrase:
This parchment has been subject to much scrutiny and speculation. Superficially it consists of a passage from Luke 6:1-4 written in the Latin language but with a Greek text[I17] called Uncial. The features are the small triangle in the top left hand corner with an m over it, and an ‘i’ or a ‘1’ inset, three dots over the first letter ‘e’ and PS with a spiral in the bottom right. In view that we know that the supposed forgers of this are alleged to have copied these from an original that, he said, has the two texts on either side, then we are to assume that alterations (sometimes not correct) may be present on this copy and probably most important the scale may not be correct. The passage translated from the Latin says:
1 And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days? 3 And Jesus answering them said, have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; 4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the Shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
On first examination of this it seems innocent enough,
however now it has been highlighted one is first tempted to scrutinize what
the passage is actually saying. In the actual text Jesus doesn’t actually
answer the accusation of the Pharisees. He and the disciples are merely
plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath but Jesus brings in David and
‘Shewbread’ into the conversation. He appears to be saying that He and the
disciples are the priesthood and are entitled to eat this ‘Shewbread’, which
He says is apparently, “only for the priesthood”. This Shewbread is only for
the priesthood but surely corn is for everyone. Shewbread is translated
Lechem hap pānīm a more accurate translation of this is
“presence bread” or bread that is
always in the presence of God. The Septuagint states that salt is mixed with
frankincense (referred to as anamnesis) and is a memorial ritual
(azkarah) the loaves having been laid out in groups of twelve in two piles
on a table which is then offered to the altar of God. But according to the
Book of Chronicles the Kohathite clan had the exclusive charge of baking
this bread and setting it in order. Unleavened products were prohibited from
the altar and leavened (risen) requires yeast to make it rise. Yeast is a
fungus but another type of fungus may have been used here and the
significance of this will become clearer later. It is possible that
Shewbread is a kind of leavened bread and these cakes were carried
into the inner temple and left for a week and only Jewish priests were
allowed to eat these after they had been there a week, perhaps after a mould
or fungus had formed on them. Then they were removed and eaten by the
priests but only inside a holy place. The
cakes were shaped by three separate containers, one gold, another being used
whilst the loaves were just dough, the other whilst the bread was in the
oven in order to protect the shape. The Mishnah describes the loaves as 10
long and 5 Etzba wide with rims/horns that were 7 Etzba long. The baking was
always done inside the inner temple. According to the Talmud this bread is
baked by the House of Garmu and the Talmud goes on to say that they had a
secret method of baking this bread. The process was lost after the
destruction of the
With this it is worth mentioning the heresy from this
part of the
It seems that the Lord’s Prayer, which is a well known feature of the Christian Faith, may well have initially come from the Cathars. In the Lord’s Prayer of course we have the line:
“Give us this day our daily bread”
However in the Cathar Faith this line is slightly different. From the Cathar ritual we have this:
“Panem nostrum supersubstancialem da nobis hodie.”
The Cathars we are told are decended from the Bogomils
from a region in
Even today the Bulgarian version of the Lord’s Prayer
reads “our daily [substantial]
bread” which is much closer to the Greek original
αρτον ημον τον επιουσιον”
where the word “επιουσιον” means
literally “suprasubstantial”. In other words, the Cyrillo-Methodian version
is closer to the Greek original than the Vulgate used by Wycliffe which says
bread”. In fact, the term “supersubstantialem” is used in the various
Vulgate versions, in Matthew and in Luke (11:2-4), but it is practically
excluded from the liturgical and sacramental practice used by the Catholic
Church. What is more, to pronounce “suprasubstantial” [supersubstantialem]
instead of “our daily bread” [panem
nostrum quotidianum] in the Lord’s Prayer was considered a sure sign of
heresy in the middle ages. According to Collectio Occitanica, the
Inquisition records from
So when we read again this piece of plain text from parchment 1 (The Dagobert parchment) we find a specific reference to eating not ordinary bread but Shewbread that had developed a mould and then only the priesthood, or a group who know how to prepare this, should be allowed to do eat Shewbread. One is reminded that wheat can be sometimes affected by a fungus called Ergot. Too much ingestion of Ergot will result in a condition known as “St Anthony’s Fire” [I22] which, because of bad storage of wheat, was very common in the middle ages and is extremely painfull and usually results in death. Whilst Ergot contains no lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) it does contain ergotamine, which has been used to synthesize lysergic acid[I23] , and was used as the precursor for synthesis of LSD.
Moving back to the parchment it seems to set apart the words “Redis Bles Solis Sacerdotibus”, Repeat Wheat is only for the initiated. Apart from the word Sacerdotibus, this is not to be found in the original Vulgate text at all. Once again we have some further curiosities, ‘Bles’ is not actually a French word but may be slang and superficially at least ‘Blé’ is French for wheat[i24] but not the word Bles and the plural for Blé is Blé as the plural for corn is corn. Then the text finishes with the Latin phrase “Solis Sacerdotibus” - “Only for the initiated”.
Redis[I25] Bles can be translated as in a crude way as Repeat Corn and if one looks in the centre of the Dagobert text one sees the Latin word translated as corn is ‘SPICA’ just left of centre of the fourth line. We will find later that the star SPICA in the constellation of Virgo holds a special place in the heavens and this reference to this star constellation appears again and again in our story.
On the left is one interpretation of the clearly odd layout of the text. You will notice an irregular pentacle and right in the centre of this pentacle is the word SPICA.
According to some scholars the
Is the eating of Shewbread a ceremony associated with the return of the star Spica? The star that during the current Astrological Age marks the Autumn Equinox. The rise of the Goddess or the Queen of Heaven.
The inclusion of French accentuated characters here complicates any direct translation from the Greek Uncial text in the parchment. On further examination of the text we find that the majority of the parchment text is not from the original Vulgate Latin text at all.
One striking difference here is that the parchment text, although trying to describe King Dagobert, who is featured as a possible descendent from the Davidic bloodline, does not mention King David at all whereas the Vulgate text does. The simple appended code picks out the name Dagobert; this tends to suggest that the ‘Dagobert’, ‘Sion’ and ‘treasure’ references were put in later.
According to Wieland Willker, a German writer, the
parchment text is from something called the Codex Bezae, a passage in Latin
named after Theodore Beza, a French Calvinist theologian and scholar who
apparently found the text in a monastery during the 17th century.
Beza actually has a statue dedicated to him in
Dans la registre de la Très Révérente Loge à l'Orient de Lyon "La haute Philospophie"... sur la liste le présent 'd'honneur' , L’Abbé Saunière
Beza took his Codex to
According to Jean-Luc Chaumeil the Codex was published
in ‘Dictionaire de la Bible’ in Paris in 1895 which was published and edited
by someone called F Vigouroux and from this Chaumeil concludes that it
must-have-been Philippe de
Chérisey, a Marquis from the town of Luc St Martin close to Rennes le
Chateau who copied this parchment. Perhaps it would be prudent to point out
at this stage that most of the anti-mystery story emanates from this single
source – Jean Luc Chaumeil, a self proclaimed expert on the
But there are two encrypted parchments in this mystery and when the two texts are placed side by side and the difference in the formation of each letter are scrutinised it is as plain as day that they were written by two different people. According to Jean Luc Chaumeil, Philippe de Chérisey writes a 40 page treatise as to how he made up the second Shepherdess text. Why? - A simple statement from Philippe de Chérisey to the tune of ‘I done it and it is all nonsense’ would be sufficient, not 40 pages detailing every aspect of the construction of the eventual nonsense message being described in minute detail thank you very much. Indeed de Chérisey is unlikely to have been the author of the second parchment although he could have conceivably written the Dagobert parchment or at the very least altered it to include the King Dagobert reference.
One further aspect of this is the odd phrase sometimes rendered as ‘and he is there dead’. This is more likely to be ‘and it is death’ - or ‘it is the death card’ (directly known as LAMORT) which is from the Tarot of Marseilles and this card is numbered thirteen. The Tarot of Marseilles was written by a man who went by the name of Papus and we shall be discussing this enigmatic follower of esotericism later. In Tarot the appearance of the Death Card paradoxically does not mean Death per se but a change or to put it more succinctly:
The esteemed French researcher Pierre Jarnac, who apparently exchanged letters with Philippe de Chérisey, agrees that this suggestion of him writing a 40 page confession doesn’t hold water. He too asks the question as to why de Chérisey, a genuine French aristocrat would write the 40 page treatise currently held by Jean Luc Chaumeil called Stone & Paper giving details on how he was supposed to have concocted some text that was in the end meaningless anyway. Why bother? Indeed a former close friend of Philippe de Chérisey thinks that the only victim of a de Chérisey prank is Jean Luc Chaumeil himself, who apparently continually pestered de Cheriséy to the point of being a nuisance. De Cheriséy gave Chaumeil what he wanted to hear and Chaumeil swallowed it hook line and sinker.
A further complication comes from Pierre Plantard himself in an interview he apparently made in 1989. In it he says that with regard to the “famous” parchments (he doesn’t specify which parchment) published by “a person” who claims authority on this matter (undoubtedly he is speaking of Gérard de Sède here) that it is a fabrication by Philippe de Chérisey for a film on Rennes ”similar” to that Jean Louis Fournier, based on a novel by J.M. Thimbaux called L’Or du Diable (The Devil’s Gold). He said that the original text is in the Bibliotheque Nationale in a book of Christian Antiquities. To date no such publication has come to the scrutiny of this author from the Bibliotheque Nationale or anywhere else. It does appear that Plantard was trying to discredit Gérard de Sède here and any admittance that parchments were both fakes would do this. But what about the letter from Philippe de Chérisey to Pierre Plantard which talks about Gérard de Sède being in possession of the facts of George Monti apparently obtained from the burglary and asking what they are to do about it? - Clearly de Chérisey was worried about this. It seems that de Sède was in possession of some documents he wasn’t supposed to have and Plantard may have wished to invalidate these documents in the aftermath of de Sède revelations in his books. Or the whole thing may have been stage managed for publicity, in the end it doesn’t really matter.
It is perhaps worth repeating here that a year earlier
in 1988 Gérard de Sède wrote a book about the
“impostures and fantasies of
Rennes-le-Chateau”, he hadn’t been this unsure before. In it he tells us
that ‘a pseudo-journalist – one Jean-Luc Chaumeil – went beyond a joke in
publishing an article in Charivari relating the supposed discovery of
Saunière’s treasure in
Who are we to believe here? - Perhaps no one. If this is your standard con then the main three players Philippe de Chérisey, Pierre Plantard and Gérard de Sède would hope to make money out of this but, with the possibly exception of Gérard de Sède, they failed. We appear to have two opposing groups at the centre of this apparent parchment hoax, Philippe de Chérisey and Pierre Plantard on one side and Gérard de Sède and Jean Luc Chaumeil on the other with Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent coming in later and clearly upsetting the plan, at least with regard to the English speaking world. Remember of course that whilst the coded parchments are being labelled suspect here there are other genealogy parchments found that may be genuine, but are rarely discussed, the old theory here being that in order to draw attention away from a truth you submerge it in a sea of lies. But the current theory is dominated by the suggestion that the parchments (plural) were ‘fabricated’ by Philippe de Chérisey but Plantard emphatically says that the “the famous parchments published by a person” were intended to be a part of a film based on a novel called L’Or du Diable by J.M. Thibaux. It is worth noting that the French word for ‘fabricated’ can also mean ‘copied by hand’ from an original. Also making them for a film does not in any way invalidate them.
A document written by Jacques Cholet who did some digging in the area of Rennes le Chateau church produced a report in 1967. He reports what he calls “the tombstone of Blanchefort” as saying on it:
‘Rendre ou Rennes Au roi ou du Roi
les coffres ou dans la cave ou
Return or Rennes King or of the Kings coffer or in the cellar or to have it underground.
Parallel this with “This treasure belongs to Dagobert II and to Sion and he is there dead” which is likely to a phrase ‘fabricated’ by Philippe de Chérisey. The phrase ‘Redis Regis’ which appears on a tombstone associated with Marie de Hautpoul may also mean ‘Return to the King.’
Jacques Cholet says that Saunière entered some
underground route to reach his treasure via the “tombstone of the
Chevalier” and according to an enquiry made after Saunière’s death
“The faithful walked on planks in the
centre of the church, facing the altar”, Saunière having dug up the
Nave. Cholet later says that he feels this is incorrect and many people
think that this is Cholet saying that there was no passage but he goes on to
say that Saunière had the tiled floor re-laid and the hole underneath had
been blocked up, but Saunière had still managed to visit his treasure and
Cholet surmises that once he had entered the underground chamber he had
managed to discover another exit or entrance.
It seems to be rather amusing that detractors to this
story feel they are making some kind of new revelation with the suggestion
that Philippe de Chérisey may have written the parchments but this whole
thing had been discussed as long ago as the mid 1980s in the book ‘The
Messianic Legacy’. In various publications and in particular one written by
Lincoln alone called ‘The Key to the Sacred Pattern’ he describes his
dealings with de Chérisey and the other player called Pierre Plantard de St
Clair, whom are supposed members of the Secret Society mentioned earlier
called ‘The Prieure de Sion’. In ‘The Messianic Legacy’ it describes a
meeting Lincoln and the BBC held in the Art studio of Jean-Luc Chaumeil’s
mother with Plantard and de Chérisey, where Plantard says that de Chérisey
“very good originals”
the parchments but it is clear that the ones produced at this meeting by de
Chérisey are copies. As far as we know nobody, including Jean-Luc Chaumeil,
has seen the original copies of these documents and it is distinctly
possible that neither Plantard nor de Chérisey have ever seen the originals
as Chaumeil has signally failed to produce them in the many years he has
been involved in this. Plantard describes them to Henry Lincoln and the BBC;
however at no point has de Chérisey admitted he wrote them from scratch.
Another matter of importance to understand here is that we are not being
told which parchment he is supposed to have altered. Several copies of the
parchments apparently abound but we are told that these copies seen by
“I’m writing an
explanation of the codes. I’ll send you a copy. You’ll be amused”.
Perhaps the new parchment that has been apparently
written by de Chérisey is only the first Dagobert parchment with the
childish encryption and he has amended what
A writer who called himself Jean Delaude wrote in a set
of documents deposited in the French National Library, a document published
This is the first indictation that the author Jean
Delaude was indeed Philippe de Chérisey for Admiral Mouchez was a famous
astronomer, navigator and cartographer. His name was Amédée Ernest
Barthélemy Mouchez. Amédée
was of course the pseudonym adopted by Philippe de Chérisey
perhaps as homage to this famous map maker. Mouchez was a member of the
Académie des sciences and was commissioned to observe the transit of
Admiral Mouchez was a cartographer who proposed international co-operation with the purpose of mapping of the stars.
According to the Circle of Ulysses the head of ‘Le Cercle du Lys’ was described in this document as the Countess of Chambord who you will remember gave Saunière the money to renovate the church.
Jean-Luc Chaumeil is now insisting that de Chérisey made up the whole thing and that he has his confession in this document called Stone and Paper that was indeed written by Philippe de Chérisey. This document held by Jean-Luc Chaumeil was apparently stolen according to Henry Lincoln and has never been given over for close examination; in fact everything Chaumeil has said has so far been taken on blind faith that he is telling the truth, a blind faith born entirely from the desire to make this whole thing easy on the understanding.
Jean Luc Chaumeil has now published a book and was
released to French readers around the end of July 2006.
The book is called
Rennes-le-Château – Gisors – Le Testament du Prieuré de Sion (Le Crépuscule
d’une Ténébreuse Affaire).
Whilst it is entirely possible that de Chérisey could indeed have made up or more likely altered the Dagobert parchment for this ‘Cercle du Lys’ movement in Paris, if as reported by Plantard, it was on the back of the shepherdess text then this is unlikely. However the ‘photocopies’ in possession of Jean Luc Chaumeil are precisely that – They are copies, it actually says this on them and is annotated as such by Pierre Plantard. The Dagobert parchment in possession of Chaumeil carries Plantard’s signature written in red ink and has the name de Chérisey written on it split up halfway along a word and hyphenated in order to get it in. That this is addition of de Chérisey’s name was an afterthought is blatantly obvious. One of course questions whether Plantard did write de Chérisey’s name here, given Chaumeil’s history of faked documents. This was done after de Chérisey’s sudden death and perhaps Plantard is only guessing himself or perhaps he had suddenly remembered the fate of his former friend and mentor George Monti who was poisoned, and felt that he ought to distance himself from these parchments and the shadowy personages still operating behind this mystery.
If he had wanted to de Chérisey could have altered the shepherdess parchment to include the King Dagobert text and bring the Merovingians into the story on this one document. Philippe de Chérisey has admitted that he had altered a parchment and this has always been assumed to be the Shepherdess copy, but to alter this would be difficult, it would be easier to write it completely from the beginning. Could de Chérisey have merely altered the Dagobert copy with the childlike code of raised characters to include a reference to King Dagobert, Sion and treasure and the Merovingians? Indeed as we shall see, de Chérisey seems to be so far from the actual solution in this Stone and Paper document that we must draw the conclusion that the document held by Jean Luc Chaumeil is nothing more than de Chérisey’s original notes [I A29] of his attempts at a possible solution to the shepherdess code. De Chérisey even takes out an injunction preventing someone using his solution which he describes in an appendage in a note written to a British researcher as ‘Bergere pas de tentation etc. Many people have said that this is de Chérisey admitting to writing the original code but he says nothing of the sort, he is merely admitting to having the solution to the code and wishes to protect it from use by other authors like Gérard de Sède who appears to have taken possession of the Priory Documents illegally following a burglary at the Paris home of Philippe de Chérisey. The letter from de Chérisey to Plantard[I A30] is now in the public domain that describes de Chérisey’s concern at losing some Priory documents in particular what he describes as ‘the file of George Monti’ and a contract that Pierre Plantard had with Rene Descadeillas regarding the rights to a book.
As described in ‘The Key to the Sacred Pattern’, de Chérisey’s confession signature on this document ‘may have been’ later forged or indeed he may have decided to sign it in some kind of desperate attempt to discredit others who he appears to have fallen out with. I’ve merely touched the surface of this schism between the primary players but it can be read about in greater detail in ‘The Messianic Legacy’ and ‘The Key to the Sacred Pattern’. Until we are given access for close scrutiny of the Stone and Paper document we have to conclude that yet more devious escapades by this or these shadowy organisation(s) are still being played out. Given the devious activities surrounding this whole story and the magnitude of some of the revelations that have been aired then we are duty bound to postulate that, until given greater close examination, it may be the case that the Stone and Paper document has been forged to deflect further study. It has now been established by a graphologist that two different authors penned each coded parchments. There is little doubt the two encrypted documents were written by two different people.
Philippe de Chérisey died suddenly in July 1985 and is no longer able to defend accusations that he is the principle hoaxer of the whole story. Whilst it is true that de Chérisey described himself as the prankster this in no way proves that he wrote the whole thing and the evidence suggests that he didn’t write the Shepherdess parchment. Who did write it and when it was written is still a mystery and still an object of speculation but one must reiterate that this is simply too elaborate for the whole thing to be a hoax. What is occurring here is that a great deal of false claims and counter claims are being thrown up in order to confuse any investigation and the truth is being submerged in a sea of lies. It should be mentioned that the revelations from Jean-Luc Chaumeil have only appeared since the last of the three others involved in this mystery have died.
One story that requires some explanation by the ‘de-Chérisey-done-it’ fraternity we find here involves the tombstone of Marie de Blanchefort that Saunière is supposed to have defaced. Independent evidence has confirmed that the stone existed with the accompanying errors in 1905. It was confirmed by a visit from a scientific group from Carcasonne led by Elie Tisseyre and a reproduction can be seen today at the Société d’Etudes Scientifiques de l’Aude. It seems Philippe de Chérisey knew all about this drawing from the Société d’Etudes Scientifiques de l’Aude and allegedly instructed Gérard de Sède to copy it from the Société d’Etudes Scientifiques de l’Aude, adding the other headstone containing the phrase PS PRAECUM. De Chérisey talks about this phrase saying that it alludes to the opening lines of the Dagobert parchment by the words Sabbato secundo primo. He says:
“The most interesting point concerns the phrase ‘Sabbato secundo primo’, which has caused problems for some interpreters, who cannot find any Biblical references that include these words but which nicely complements the PS sigilla (a very late addition to the tombstone) and constitutes a commentary on the formula PRAE.CUM”
This is nonsense and is completely at odds with other text found in the Dossiers Secret. Is de Chérisey simply guessing here or is he trying to link the Shepherdess parchment to the Dagobert parchment? Methinks the latter. But if he was the author of both parchments why not do this in a more obvious and succinct manner? Why this nebulous link to Sabbato secundo primo? It seems that de Chérisey doesn’t know the answer and is trying to link a document he altered to a document he found or was given but did not write himself.
is clear is that de Chérisey, Plantard, de Sède and Jean-Luc Chaumeil have
not been one hundred percent honest, open and forth coming in all this and
why would they; they are after all a secret society. However neither has the
‘its-all-a-hoax’ fraternity been completely honest, their story shifts with
each new piece of evidence and seems to rely exclusively on a predefined
belief to carry them through. The story has become clouded and confused and
perhaps this too is deliberate. It is my belief that Plantard and de
Chérisey initially knew very
little about any of this and de Chérisey’s so-called confession in the
document Stone and Paper was merely his incomplete attempt to solve
the clues of the large Shepherdess parchment himself. I believe that de
Chérisey was shown the parchments by persons unknown or came into possession
of them during the Priory of Sion’s stated activities drawn out in their
1956 constitution of historical research and attempted to solve the mystery
himself. Testimony from those that knew them and old photographs show
Plantard and de Chérisey searching the area of
His original treatment of the code in Circuit is so far
off the mark that he couldn’t possibly be the original author. However
during the writing of this book another revelation has appeared from out of
the blue. There is a well documented flaw in the encoding and decoding
process of the Shepherdess parchment. It was encoded using a 25 letter
alphabet but decoded with a 26 letter alphabet, this causes errors in in
Vigenere coding method. This wasn’t widely known in
It is rather fortunate that Jean Luc Chaumeil is still around twenty years after de Chérisey’s sudden and unexpected death so he can reveal the truth to the world and isn’t it lucky that the world is still interested enough after the staggering success of Dan Brown’s thriller so Chaumeil can sell a few books and educate the world into what really happened? Presumably he’ll be giving his expected royalties from the expected elevated post da Vinci Code book sales that he has gleaned from his privileged information as a confident of de Chérisey to charity – may I suggest a charity that supports research into the causes of de Chérisey’s sudden unexpected death. The fact is we are still awaiting Jean Luc Chaumeil to release this document for close public scrutiny, oh yes he talks about it but doesn’t offer it for examination by experts to see if it has been tampered with. Also may I remind Chaumeil that he has yet to produce the original parchments apparently fabricated by Philippe de Chérisey, for the ones he’s been showing so far has the word ‘photocopie’ written by Plantard not de Chérisey clearly written on the Chaumeil’s copy. I presume a faker would have kept his ORIGINAL; may we see this and have it independently examined please? One wonders why de Chérisey didn’t give Chaumeil the altered original parchments as well as the Stone and Paper document. It should be repeated that Jean Luc Chaumeil and Gérard de Sède has in the past tried to sell a fake document regarding this story to Henry Lincoln and the BBC. Shifting stories, sudden release of evidence not seen before, one is aware of the pungent aroma of a well-known scavenging rodent here.
It is clear that de Chérisey and Plantard were by and large merely guessing at the solution and being fed snippets of information from other sources. It is my opinion they, de Chérisey and Plantard, were originally nothing but treasure hunters carrying out the stated aim of the Priory of Sion who later acquired some real delusions of grandeur and who may have indeed found some documents (possibly the files of George Monti) or were being fed them from someone else like two starving people, but were initially no more into this mystery than anyone else. Plantard’s wartime activities may have made him an ideal target for others to use him to forward a specific timed pre-millennia agenda.
We too seem to be guessing here about de Chérisey but
what are we to expect when dealing with a ‘Secret Society’. It is odd that
we should have so much information at all and it really seems to indicate
that this was a controlled release of information, probably through Plantard
and de Chérisey either wittingly or unwittingly.
Let us for the sake of argument assume that the parchments were written by Philippe de Chérisey, what of it? Here’s the bottom line – So what? If the parchments yield new information that can be checked out it matters not a damn from whence they came. Whatever the origin of the parchments one fact is certain; they contain clues that need to be solved here and no attempt has been made to produce a tangible solution of the code released by Chaumeil or de Chérisey to the world. The simplicity and shall we say ‘corniness’ of Chaumeil’s so-called confession emanating from Stone and Paper is in stark contrast to the brilliance of the complex code that supposedly created it. It may be that the Priory of Sion was formed recently by a more secret society to push out some information into the public domain and then fade back into the shadows once this concept has been aired and there is some historical premise that this may have been the case and Philippe de Chérisey could indeed have been the designated prime source for this. It may even be that this group was looking for help in solving the clues themselves and decided to bring in more unwitting help from outside.
It was said that Pierre Plantard admitted to the scam under oath; this is not true, Plantard only relinquished his claim to be a descendant of the Merovingian kings he has never admitted that the whole Priory of Sion thing was a scam. Why should he? The Priory of Sion is/was a genuine organisation started and registered in 1956, it is not scam.
In their book ‘The Tomb of God’ written by Paul Schellenberger and Richard Andrews the authors declared, and rightly so, that it doesn’t matter when the parchments were made and even if this was indeed Philippe de Chérisey who made them up, if the solving of the clues leads to a discovery then it proves that de Chérisey or probably others were privy to some secret.
But if, as seems to be the suggestion, this whole affair is dangerous to the establishment it would be prudent for them to employ any means to play down the whole aspect of this. Indeed there are those who seem to take up their whole time rubbishing this, a concerted playing down of this mystery is in evidence. The fact is that none of this ‘it’s-all-a-hoax’ routine was being aired when these people; Plantard, de Sède and especially de Chérisey were still alive and able to counter anything that was being said using undisputable evidence or facts. We don’t get whole websites dedicated to rubbishing Bigfoot, or the Bermuda Triangle but we do get whole websites set up specifically to counter this story and their main tactic appears to be rubbishing the messenger with little or no reasoned argument or facts to counter the main argument. When one sees the consequences to certain authorities and groups should this be true then one can see why someone would want to rubbish this.
Indeed one cannot escape the political overtones of this, little wonder that serious researchers are attacked at every instance. Persons reading this saying that in no way will we believers ever be convinced my advice to them is ‘Don’t bother then’ go away and revel in silence in your supreme knowledge but stop muddying the waters. Your over eagerness to intervene is showing, in fact you appear to be a little too eager.
It is the opinion of this author that de Chérisey ‘altered’ (the French use the word fabricated here) the Codex Bezae text to include a reference to Saint Dagobert but he did not (and could not) alter the shepherdess parchment. To simply alter this shepherdess document would be difficult; this document would need to be written from scratch and both parchments have quite distinct differences in the formation of the letters. These two parchments were written by two different people.
The historical validity or otherwise of the parchments
is all smoke and mirrors, whilst people are thrashing out mute points as to
whether men who are now dead and unable to defend themselves wrote the
parchments or not. The main players in this Saunière, Boudet and the
The second Shepherdess parchment we have been speaking about is in some respects more interesting and yet easier to understand. It was said by Plantard that the two coded parchments are supposedly different sides of the same document. Unless they are supposed to interact in some way then this is unlikely, as it would make them difficult to read as parchment tends to be transparent and very old parchment rarely has writing on both sides.
This second parchment has been dismissed as a fake on
the grounds that versions of this didn’t appear into the public domain until
1889. Why this should make any difference to its validity has again not been
successfully explained to me. One could also say that as the Dead Sea
Scrolls only came to light in 1949 then they must be declared to be fake on
the grounds of their late arrival into the public domain alone. The 1889
date is when Wordsworth/White Oxford first published it in languages other
than Latin. The Latin text may have been (and very likely was) in existence
long before this but was only made public on this date. It has been claimed
that we are dealing with a secret society that has claimed to run events for
millennia and the detractors then expect this society to rely on releases of
information into the public domain?
Indeed it seems that a good deal of this text is identical to an
earlier publication in Greek from
It was said that the original find was of four parchments but rather than simply say that the two parchments are part of the same document with two of the other three being the genealogies and the third a testimony from 1695, it is more likely that that only one coded parchment was found here; de Chérisey knew the original story or there being only four documents so why make two coded parchments knowing there were three more parchments making five in all. Neither of these coded parchments can be easily related or referenced to the other, apart from de Chérisey’s feeble attempt to reference the Dagobert document with Primo Secundo using PS. Other messages have been subtly included in the shepherdess text so why not include the Dagobert message also? This would not be difficult to do. Gino Sandri Secrétaire of the Priory of Sion said in the interview that the Abbé Saunière did discover parchments but that the parchments we have come to know were not those he discovered and that the encrypted parchments “were never for the general public” and that the “….papers were used as support with an exchange of messages coded between networks in action, even in competition.” According to Sandri they have nothing to do with treasure of some nature but that:
“elsewhere, the authentic texts in fact are engraved in the stone.”
It was also said that the parchments were found in the
alter pillar, what is clear is that it was not the one that once featured in
the garden holding up the statue of the Virgin Mary as this pillar is
neither hollow nor is it cracked. There is however a similar sized pillar in
the churchyard of
This code of the second parchment allegedly found by
Saunière is superficially more complicated than the first. The exact method
of decryption can be found in detail in Henry Lincoln’s
A brief description of the encryption in the
shepherdess parchment is that extraneous letters that do not appear to be in
the Latin text break up the Uncial Latin text shown above and in principle
these appear every seventh letter but there are exceptions to this rule.
These letters, 140 of them, form the basis of the code. Out of these letters
the phrase ‘AD GENES ARETH’ (Literally: towards Birth [of the] Earth).
Perhaps more specifically it means the “Womb of the Earth” and maybe
describing a specific place in
That this area in
“When they crossed over, they came to the land at Genesareth (gennesaret)”
“When they crossed over they came to the land at Gennesaret, and moored to the shore”
Both these passages deal with Jesus walking on water
and the performance of miracles in the
research is yielding results about El Ghuweir as it possibly being the
burial place for the females associated with
These extraneous 12 letters spelling AD GENESARETH are removed from the middle section to leave 128 extraneous letters (or two sets of 64 letters).
The parchment code requires two keys for Tableau de Vigenere technique for the decoding and both of these keys apparently come from the tombstone of Marie d’Blanchefort. The first is MORT EPEE. These two words could be extracted directly from the mistakes made on the tombstone (MORT being the capitals and EPEE being the small letters) that was observed in 1905 from tombstone text of Marie d’Ables de Negri d’Hautpoul, who apparently died in 1781. Even the phrase ‘MORT EPEE’ will stand alone and itself be shown to have its own significance later.
The second stage of decipherment is achieved by substituting the letter with the letter that immediately precedes it in the alphabet. This process confirms that de Chérisey unlikely to have written the parchment encryption. The reason is because, as already mentioned, this process uses an alphabet with 25 letters only. Up to 150 years ago the French did not use the letter W in any writings. De Chérisey’s so-called confession and methodology description uses a 26-letter alphabet. If a 26-letter alphabet is used the resultant decryption has errors, this very late revelation from Jean Luc Chaumeil that de Chérisey knew about the use of a 25-letter alphabet is very suspicious, is he saying that de Chérisey knowingly allowed an error to persist? The inclusion by de Chérisey of this unusual use of an old alphabet is meticulous; one wonders why de Chérisey never mentioned it in his book Circuit where he seems to have mentioned a lot of other things.
Stage three uses the Tableau de Vigenere decryption again but this time uses the whole of the text on the tombstone as the key with the addition of the phrase PS PRAECUM to make up the 128 letter key required. The length of this key will make this code uncrackable without the key and this key is applied reversed. The next stage shifts the resultant letter back down the text by one letter. In ‘Le Tresor Maudit’ de Sède uses a two-letter shift here, which is incorrect but miraculously yields the correct answer in his book. De Chérisey, the supposed creator of this whom it is alleged was feeding information to de Sède, clearly had only a superficial knowledge as to how the encryption worked; he was therefore NOT the original author. The final stage five uses a complex technique called the “knights tour”. Here the text is split into two chessboards and arranged on the squares consisting of 64 squares each. On each board in turn the knight is moved so as to reach every square on the whole board in the minimum number of moves. As the knight moves the letter underneath at the start of the move is moved to the square the knight moves to. And de Chérisey alludes to this on page 131 in Circuit.
The final text can now be read, it says:
BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA CLEF PAX DCLXXXI PAR LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU J ACHEVE CE DAEMON DE GARDIEN A MIDI POMMES BLEUES
Jean-Luc Chaumeil maintains that de Chérisey gives the method of the encryption in this document called Stone and Paper that he has in his possession, strangely Chaumeil never mentions this 26 letter anomaly in the ten years he has been talking about Stone and Paper on TV broadcasts. De Chérisey does in fact mention that the final result is a direct anagram of the Hautpoul tombstone with the words PS PRAECUM removed. De Chérisey says:
“I would like to have the reader observe that a prodigious phenomenon occurs, which no logical brain has been able to explain: after composing text A with text B to obtain text C which, confronted with text D, gives text E, it so happens that text E is an anagram of text D” i.e. composed of the same letters”
“….wouldn’t it be prodigious if, at the end of all this work, we could but reconstitute the funerary text? Prodigious and perfectly stupid…May our reader rest assured: another text is to be discovered and it is an anagram of the tombstone”
“Common opinion has it that Abbé Bigou, parish priest of RLC in 1781 and the author of the epitaph, also composed this amusement. Such is not our opinion: the anagram was composed in our time and concludes a signature which we shall discover when analysing the decoded text,”
Here we find de Chérisey talking around the solution. Paul J Saussez thinks that de Chérisey is saying that although he recognises that the former curé of Rennes le Chateau the Abbé Bigou composed the text on the tombstone, he de Chérisey, used the text and made up the parchment. But the sentences above don’t say this, de Chérisey says that it is “our opinion” that the parchment anagram has been composed in our time. This is merely a hint that he may have done it but it also can be taken at face value and that he indeed isn’t the composer but this mysterious ‘they’ who think it “not our opinion” seem to agree that it has been done recently by someone else. This document held by Jean-Luc Chaumeil that he calls Stone and Paper but what appears to me more likely to be de Chérisey’s notes on how he would solve the final clues.
Philippe de Chérisey mentioned the final result of the decoded next in his book CIRCUIT and, as I’ve already mentioned, he even tried to protect his discovery from use by others through a lawyer. Why wouldn’t he welcome his creation to be spread as wide as possible? However he got the whole solution and the decryption method wrong and actually got three letters completely incorrect.
BERGE(S)E PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA CLEF (S)AX DCLX(H)XI PAR…..etc
However he somehow miraculously arrived at the right answer. How can the supposed composer of such a meticulous and clearly well thought out encryption method then make such a basic error? This, according to Jean Luc Chaumeil, is apparently after he mentions the use of a 25-letter alphabet. It is clear that the man who is supposed to have composed the whole original encryption who then it appears got his own code completely wrong cannot be the original composer of the original code.
In his book Circuit de Chérisey alludes to the painting of Heliodorus being chased from the Temple by the Horse of God CHEVAL DE DIEU painted by Eugene DeLACROIX in the Chapel of Angels at the Church of St Sulpice in Paris and according to de Chérisey this is his solution to the final text PAR LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU. There are two problems with this; firstly this explanation differs dramatically from his solution in Stone and Paper and secondly; Why in Circuit is de Chérisey referring to a period when Delacroix painted his three paintings in St Sulpice when the French used a 26 letter alphabet and yet apparently goes to a lot of trouble encoding the text using a 25 letter alphabet?
One is again forced to make the conclusion that Philippe de Chérisey didn’t write the Shepherdess code, he was given the solution and a rough methodology of how tombstone letters become rearranged by someone else or got it from a document and de Chérisey decrypted it. On reaching the Shepherdess solution he then tried to protect it from use by other authors. His interpretation of the meaning of the final text is written in Stone and Paper, which is frankly too corny for de Chérisey in my opinion. Many detractors say this document is absolute proof that de Chérisey composed the parchment code but he merely says that he is the author of the solution, in other words he is the one who solved it; at no point does he say that he is the author of the original code for the shepherdess parchment.
Another thing to strike one after the decrypted text is revealed is that after a very complex process that is impossible to decrypt without prior knowledge of the method and most importantly – the keys, one is still left with a message that is still not entirely clear and even de Chérisey himself has been unable to decrypt this. He has changed his opinion as to its meaning on several occasions, is this behaviour of a man who wrote the whole thing in the first place?
It is obvious someone knew the key and the method, however in order to encode this one only needs to work from the final solution ‘Bergere pas de Tentation etc….’ and one can see that the letters in the Knight’s Tour matrix would also form an anagram of the final solution and the Hautpoul Tombstone as the letters are not changed here just re-arranged in a precise pattern. A letter shift to the one below then a change of letters using a Vigenere table with the tombstone plus PS PRAECUM yields a now scrambled text. Here it would seem to be sufficient to stop as this would not need to be any more complex particularly since the final result is also a riddle, the letters have been displaced and the letters have been changed. However an analysis by a computer using a letter frequency analysis could still yield the final text at this stage, indeed the actual letters have only been changed by the letter shift, a childishly simple code. Our encoder now makes another letter shift opposite to the previous shift. This doesn’t cancel out the previous shift as the letters have been completely displaced by the use of the Vigenere table. Then he uses the Vigenere table again this time using the mistakes which make up the word MORT EPEE as the key. Here for the first time the actual letters will be changed before they were merely scrambled. A shortened key on its own such as this is easily cracked but the subsequent further scrambling will prevent any analysis. The final result is 128 scrambled letters to which AD GENES ARETH is added making 140 letters in all and these are appended to the Latin Text at a rate of about one letter in every seventh. The encoder seems to have been aware of code cracking techniques and has taken steps to prevent this from being decrypted without the keys. The placing of the final scrambled letters into the Latin words of a known parchment passage from John will have been difficult to if not impossible to achieve and it is more likely that the parchment had to be written from scratch.
De Sède wrote that Saunière had used the Army to
decrypt this message; this is most definitely incorrect, no decryption
method could have yielded a result without the key, de Sède clearly had the
key also. The French had used the Vigenere Code to send their messages
during the war with
The final text translates as the now famous phrase:
BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA CLEF PAX DCLXXXI PAR LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU JACHEVE CE DAEMON DE GARDIEN A MIDI POMMES BLEUES
“Shepherdess No Temptation which Poussin Teniers guard the key Peace 681 by the cross and this house of God I achieve this daemon guardian at Blue Apples.”
The first thing that becomes immediately clear that
this is fundamentally different from the final clue from the first
parchment. Superficially it appears to be suggesting some kind of pattern,
either on a document or a painting referenced or actually in the
Shepherdess No temptation Poussin Teniers guard the key.
Once again I can cite de Chérisey’s lack of understanding as to what the final solution means. In his book CIRCUIT that he wrote in the early 1960s he says:
“But nothing can any longer stop Charlotte for whom
the words jostle at the postillion gate. Poussin and Teniers are two
painters who became famous by the Shepherds of
This is in direct conflict with what de Chérisey then
says later in Stone and Paper. Why does the supposed creator of this hoax
take great pains to include Poussin and Teniers in his hoax only to ignore
them in the final solution? It is clear that de Chérisey is himself trying
to look for a solution and keeps changing his mind. This is not the original
author speaking here, however de Chérisey mentions something very
significant here; the painter Eugene Delacroix who is tied with the
We are able to understand that the original codemaker,
even if this is de Chérisey who concocted this over elaborate twenty year
long hoax for no logical reason, is drawing us by use of the word
Shepherdess to the seventeenth century painter Nicholas Poussin and his most
famous painting, ‘Les Bergers d’Arcadie’ (The Shepherds of Arcadia) found in
the Louvre Art museum in Paris. The other is also found easily for although
Teniers (there’s two, elder and younger) painted over a thousand paintings
between them there’s only two where St Anthony is NOT being tempted (hence
“shepherdess no temptation”) by the devil and these are both St
Anthony the Hermit and St Paul the Hermit being fed by Ravens. Interestingly
Nazi Luftwaffe chief Herman Gœring once owned one of these paintings. The
phrase PAR LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU has a tenuous link with one of the
paintings by Eugene Delacroix inasmuch as it is in the
For those who say that these words were included in order to match the letters to the original tombstone, one is reminded that the text is already possibly padded out with the phrase PS PRAECUM; it will be no greater effort to include these extra letters. No the original author needed to include these two seventeenth century painters and later we will see why.
Somewhat significantly, a painting called the Temptation of St Anthony appears in the church of Notre Dame de Marseilles in Limoux about ten miles north of Rennes le Chateau and Henry Boudet at the end of La Vraie Langue Celtique… also mentioned this enigmatic church.
[i1]The extra sign of the zodiac being Ophiuchus
[I A2]There is no mention of Saunière making his money from the sale of Masses. This myth has grown up since this book from the mid 1930s.
[i3]Never Holy Grail, that is a Christian addition
a spiritual baptism described in the New Testament,
the origin of Bertrand de "Blancafort", most French historians
say that he
from the Blanquefort family that lived in
[i6]‘Siege’ is French for seat.
A7]A Scottish folk story from
[I9]Mentioned by name in Le Serpent Rouge
[I11]One is reminded of the poem by Nostradamus that goes:
When the writing is found,
And ancient cave with a lamp is discovered,
Law, King and Prince Vlpian is proved,
Pavillon Queen and Duke under the setting place.
Nicolas Pavillon’s grandfather had been
a lawyer in
Vlpian was a Roman lawyer who served on
the consul under Septimius Severus. Vlpian was banished from
[I12]Armand de Bourbon had been heavily involved in the Fronde
[i13]Quite literally the Company of the Body and Blood of Jesus. A Roman Catholic devotional name which refers to Host and Wine.
[I14]A Priory is normally merely a portal full of novices to an Abbey comprising of Monks dedicated to an Order.
[I15]Aringarosa means Red Herring.
[im16]This is a possible reference to the Tarot death card 13.
[I17]This Latin written with Greek lettering is a repeated feature in this mystery.
[i18]One finger breadth.
Research Centre is the only institute in
[I21]dicendo in oratione Pater noster: panem nostrum supersubstantialem
[I22]The treatment of this was a speciality of the Hospital Brothers of St Anthony The members of this community wore a black habit containing the Greek letter Tau.
[I23]Ergot sclerotia naturally contains some amounts of lysergic acid.
[i24]Only with an accent over the ‘e’
it has been suggested could be reference to Redis Arreda a
former name for the Visigoth city of
[i26]Two constellations side by side.
[I27]There’s only one good original and that’s the original.
[i28]De Chérisey died suddenly afterwards
[I A29]These were the notes that he had promised to show to Henry Lincoln
[I A30]It should be noted that this letter is dated 17th January.
[I A31]From J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic stories of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Ring
[I A32]Listed as a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion