Some stolen archives ..... manuscripts/letters and accusations...
CIRCUIT is one of the most important works by Chérisey rather than his other manuscript called 'Stone & Paper'. From its internal text he puts Circuit in to the category of a 'genius' work. Stone & Paper however was said to be a joke played on Chaumeil because Cherisey disliked him. Paul Rouelle, a friend of Chérisey, who in response to questions posed to him by Paul Saussez in 2019 [via private email and published on Saussez's Facebook account] wrote;
"His friendship with Pierre Plantard (a long-standing friendship) pushed him to "play the game", and he did so until the moment of the clash between Pierre and him. After that, he withdrew from it - I must say - sometimes clumsily, as evidenced by these confessions in "Pierre et Papier". It must also be said that he had a rather serious grudge against J-L Chaumeil. There would be lots to say about that, but it would take up far too much space". [from a public post on the Facebook account of Paul Saussez].
In 'withdrawing' he means from his role in the Rennes-le-Chateau Affair. Chérisey extricated himself from the 'game' as a direct response to the 'clash' with Plantard by creating 'Stone & Paper'. This may be read a different way from the Chérisey was playing a joke on Chaumeil scenario. But Rouelle says Chérisey did have 'a rather serious grudge against J-L Chaumeil'. We remember that the word grudge means - a strong feeling of anger and dislike for a person who you feel has treated you badly, especially one that lasts for a long time'. What happened between Chérisey and Chaumeil?
In a typed letter from Chérisey dated 17th January 1985 [caution should be used as Chérisey did not often type his letters] to Plantard he wrote;
"....being close to our Brothers, there was no intrigue at all on my part to obtain your dismissal on 10 July 1984, any more than there was to secure my election as Grandmaster on 10 September 1984. The person responsible was Brother Louis Vazart along with the Lincoln clique, via Brother Gino Sandri…."
and further;
"... in August 1984 it was not my intention to get rid of Vazart, Deloux, Sandri and Rouelle from the Priory; the contingent surrounding Brother André Deyherassary imposed this ultimatum on me during my election”.
Here 'Chérisey' claims there was a move on the part of Vazart, along with what he describes as the Lincoln clique - at the behest of Gino Sandri - to remove Plantard from his own creation, the Priory of Sion! Chérisey clarifies that these turn of events occurred because he himself had had pressure put on him to get rid of Vazart, Deloux, Sandri and Rouelle! André Deyherassary [whoever that is!] & his contingent 'IMPOSED' this pressure on him.
Plantard must have felt positively betrayed and paranoid not knowing who he could trust! Indeed a circular from the Priory of Sion [in 1989] claims that this clash was so serious Plantard would only return if the members Chérisey excluded were readmitted!
Chérisey writes to Plantard again in July 1985;
'Still no answer to my letter of the 17th January ... Thus ... to warn you that Gerard de Sède is in possession of the case of files of the Priory of Sion stolen from 37, rue Saint Lazare and with it's contents he is preparing a book against us. He is also in possession of the file of George Monti, as well as a photocopy of your contract with Rene Descadeillas re: your 65% of the rights for the work: Rennes and its last Lords. Worse still, in this file was your (original) manuscript of Circuit! What can one make of the affair? Before publication - do you want me to say CIRCUIT isn't by me? What answer do you want me to give?"
Many years later, in 2003, in an interview with Jean Patrick Pourtal, Gino Sandri also referred to this burglary;
' .... in 1967, several archives .... from the Priory of Sion were stolen, during a burglary, from Philippe de Chérisey's apartment, located at 37, rue Saint-Lazare in Paris. ....Five years later, an unemployed journalist blackmailer.... will try to sell these papers to the highest bidder! [my translation].
Sandri dates the burglary to 1967 but Chérisey is writing about it in 1985, squabbles over book contract rights of 65%, CIRCUIT written by Plantard? What to make of it all?
It sounds like Plantard and Chérisey were victims of shady & greedy people out to make money, stealing personal files for information to use for their own personal gain and publications. In fact, sceptic Paul Smith wrote as much on his website;
"Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey forged the “parchments” and Gérard de Sède was reaping all the financial rewards'.
Smith claims therefore that Chérisey started the 'false parchments' idea [as produced in L'Or de Rennes]to try to sabotage a new book by Gerard de Sède to combat this 'reaping of all the financial rewards'. This new book was SIGNE: ROSE+CROIX published by Plon in 1977. However, these events are actually unrelated - as SIGNE: ROSE+CROIX was published ten years after L'OR DE RENNES. For Plantard, Gerard de Sède was passing off this new book [a re-hashed version of L'Or de Rennes with added bits to spice it up] as his complete own work - and not a collaborative original work with Plantard.
In this clash the pedigree of who first came across the Rennes Affair and disseminator of the original tale became important. According to Arnaud de Sède, the son of Gerard de Sède [my translation];
'....his wife Sophie de Sède, during a stay in the Montségur region in 1964, …. while talking with Monsieur de la Ligerie .. first heard of Abbé Saunière. After visiting the site, she decided to compile a dossier and, upon returning to Paris, submitted a synopsis to Gérard de Sède, who found the idea appealing. At the time, he was in contact with Pierre Plantard, who had already collaborated with him as an expert on symbolic matters and who, through circumstances unknown to us ….. aware of the project, immediately showed keen interest in the matter and requested a meeting with Sophie. The latter, who was rather demanding by nature, said she was "unimpressed by his low-level occultist's discourse" and, without denying him a certain astuteness, considered him a suspicious and ignorant character (she noted in particular the very approximate quality of his Latin...). Pierre Plantard nevertheless offered his collaboration and submitted a text whose content Gérard and Sophie de Sède deemed unclear and refused to consider. The Gold of Rennes would be published two and a half years later under a completely identifiable author' [text is by Arnaud de Sède and is taken from his website http://membres.lycos.fr/desedearnaud/ as found in the Preface to Signé: Rose+Croix: l'énigme de Rennes-le-Château - Les Editions de l'Oeil du Sphinx 2007. Although this Preface is not in my original 1977 copy].
Gerard de Sède made different claims. According to David Rossoni;
'De Sède claimed to have been referred to this subject in 1962 by his friend Pierre Pons, a journalist at La Dépêche du Midi: "I began my investigation in the Rennes region, in full view of all from August 1962'1, he said in 1975. Robert Arnaut, a former producer at Radio France, however, reports that he came to learn about the subject from Charroux and himself just after the broadcast, at the very end of July 1962, of an issue of the Treasure Finders Club dedicated to the "treasure of the priest with 4 billion". De Sède may have learned of the existence of Rennes-le-Château .... by listening to this radio program, or in the book published shortly before by Charroux, rather than through his journalist friend'. [A pseudo-histoire décodée - L’exemple de Rennes-le-Château, David Rossoni]. [my translation]
1] Gérard de Sède, Le Vrai dossier de l’énigme de Rennes - Réponse à M. Descadeillas, Éditions de l’Octogone, 1975, p.9].
As some might say, 'recollections may differ' or perhaps 'recollections are deliberately false'. Why so many different reports of how the Affair came to the notice of Gerard de Sède? Was it his wife first in 1964 [on a visit to Montsegur] or was it in 1962? To further muddy the waters Pierre PONS is associated with an article that started off the 1977 Signé: Rose+Croix Affair.
Plantard wrote a mise au point in his quarrel with de Sède in this Affair.
'I am compelled to issue this "Update" in order to trace in outline how the book SIGNE: ROSE+CROIX came to be published and to enable readers to understand the true significance of my "Preface" to the book "LA VRAIE LANGUE CELTIQUE" by Abbé BOUDET, which was published by Editions PIERRE BELFONT in December 1978'.
Paul Smith continues on his website:
..... all was not well with Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chérisey and Gérard de Sède. The contract of “L'Or de Rennes” included the signature of Pierre Plantard, who was due some of the book's profits .... But Gérard de Sède refused to give Pierre Plantard his share of the profits. A similar thing happened with Gérard de Sède's earlier book “Les Templiers sont parmi nous, ou, L'Enigme de Gisors” (1962). Pierre Plantard's name was on the contract of that book as well, and again de Sède did not give Plantard his full share of royalties. Therefore Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey had every right to feel outraged and denounce Gérard de Sède – and to call the two “parchments” forgeries – since they turned out to be the main selling-point of his book “L'Or de Rennes”.
In this theory de Sède does not come out as an honourable character at all! Why would he refuse to give Plantard's share of the profits? One can see why Plantard might be angry. Be that as it may these events refer to a clash between Plantard and de Sède and not Plantard and Chérisey.
If the letters by Chérisey in 1985 referred to above are anything to go by the clash might relate more to the publication of the English book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail [1982] and its aftermath. Indeed in the follow up book, The Messianic Legacy [1986], there are strange tales of manipulations, lies and espionage within the corridors of the Plantard Priory, the Lincoln team and unidentified other actors which suggest an 'aftermath' in the trail of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Plantard of course distances himself from being a descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene [how could he not?] and he must have been VERY bemused at how Lincoln et al had turned the Sauniere Affair into a bloodline descended from Christ via the Merovingians. This red herring led all those associated with Plantard to ridicule him [Chérisey in various tracts, Rouelle apparently with de Sède via La Race Fabuleuse, about the Merovingians being descended from extra-terrestrials!] - even though the invention of a Christ bloodline was made by Lincoln et al and not Plantard! How had these authors got to THAT idea from the Priory texts, when the most you could claim is that Plantard claimed some kind of descendancy from Dagobert II via Visigothic heritage?
Be that as it may, something else seems to be afoot and at times Plantard is positively paranoid. Lincoln reported that Plantard was alarmed not knowing who was briefing against him and asking for his help in finding out.
Paul Smith [again!] claims on his website;
'The biggest split between Pierre Plantard and the authors of “Holy Blood and Holy Grail” came when Louis Vazart published his book Dagobert II et le mystère de la cité royale de Stenay (1983), that contained new “parchments” without commentary. The authors of “Holy Blood” decided to utilise those “parchments” to form a Priory of Sion of their own – to do with The Guardian Assurance Company (quickly forgotten nonsense). It was all explained in the rather boring and tawdry book “The Messianic Legacy” (1986)'. [See HERE]
This is not my understanding of The Messianic Legacy! I read there nothing about Lincoln et al trying to create a new Priory of Sion! In fact the nearest to this kind of invented stuff is Plantard, in a famous show down meeting between Plantard and Lincoln mentioned there were two vacancies in the Priory. Lincoln wondered if Plantard was about to offer them membership but realised he couldn't accept because 'there were three of us'.
The furore over certain documents mentioned by Smith pertained to notarised documents bearing the signatures of Viscount Leathers, Captain Nutting, Major Clowes and Lord Selborne. Lincoln, Baigent & Leigh wrote;
'We pressed M. Plantard on the notarised documents bearing the signatures of Viscount Leathers, Captain Nutting, Major Clowes and Lord Selborne. We reminded M. Plantard that he had requested us not to discuss or publicise these documents. And yet Louis Vazart had reproduced photographs of them in his book on Dagobert II. Why, if the documents were thus going to be made public, had M. Plantard asked us to maintain secrecy? Mr. Plantard looked genuinely distressed. He had not known, he said bitterly, that M. Vazart was going to publish reproductions of the documents. If he had known in advance, he would have prevented it. Had not M. Vazart consulted him then? No, M. Plantard replied, he had known that M. Vazart was working on the book, but had had no idea it was going to include any reference to the documents. But surely, we pursued, M. Plantard had given or at least shown the documents to M. Vazart in the first place. Had he not requested M. Vazart's secrecy, just as he had ours? He had not given the documents to M. Vazart in the first place, M. Plantard replied. He had no idea where M. Vazart had obtained them. The first indication that M. Vazart knew anything about them was when they appeared in print ....
We were baffled. M. Plantard had shown us the originals of the documents in April of the previous year. If he had not shown them to M. Vazart as well then someone else obviously had duplicates. Where had M. Vazart obtained them? M. Plantard shrugged helplessly. He didn't know, he said. He found the whole situation disturbing in the extreme. He virtually implored us to investigate the matter further. He would, he said, be grateful for any information our inquiries might yield.
During our sojourn in Paris, we also had a series of meetings with Louis Vazart. M. Vazart echoed M. Plantard's assertions. No, he said, he had not received the notarized documents from M. Plantard. From where, then, had he obtained them? They had been sent to him, he said. Anonymously. In 'a plain brown envelope'. With British stamps and a London postmark! Once again, we were baffled. Who was playing at what? Was someone perhaps trying to frame us, to diminish our currency with M. Plantard and the Prieuré de Sion? In any case, if M. Vazart was telling the truth, one thing was clear someone in London was au fait with the whole affair, was keeping closely abreast of developments, was monitoring everything and, at certain key moments, was mysteriously intervening' [my emphasis].
This reminds me of further comments made by Gino Sandri in the same 2003 interview referred to above [not that I take what Sandri says at face value either, he does NOT seem to have had any link with Plantard above what he himself claims];
'... the writing of these parchments was at the time for a specific purpose. Again, it was a matter of diverting attention in order to protect other documents. As you know, from 1956, a series of publications disseminated under various pseudonyms was put into circulation. We are in the presence of a real campaign that targets a character or a company that acts in the field of occult. This exchange concerns only a small circle. Forty years later, these documents have become of no interest if only historical. It is amusing to say the least to note that a "ophakery"[?] installed at the time in Rennes-le-Château produces a lot of identical invoice documents as well as papers or correspondence attributed to Abbé Boudet or Abbé Bigou. These writings were then the subject of a juicy trade that, it seems, continued. Unfortunately, authors involved in the history of Rennes are victims of this scam in which the Priory of Sion has no share and does not derives any benefit from it. Abbé Saunière discovered parchments in the Sainte Madeleine church in Rennes-le-Château, their content has nothing to do with the papers published here and there. The same is true for those he subsequently exhumed. The plot of Gérard de Sède's novel is clever. Everything begins in 1888 with the discovery of mysterious encrypted parchments and it is the decryption whose key is engraved on a tomb that gives access to the treasure. Does that remind you of anything? As for the famous documents published and analysed by Gérard de Sède (and others...), their appearance is part of the context that I have just briefly exposed. They were not intended for the general public, nor were the famous brochures. These papers served as support for an exchange of coded messages between networks in action, even in competition. They have nothing to do with a treasure of any kind. However, elsewhere, authentic texts are actually engraved in stone.....'[my translation].
Sandri might be towing some sort of party line but which one? He seems to be part of a second created Priory with some sort of motto - Ordre de la Rose-Croix Véritas -O.D.L.R.C.V. Its website is HERE. It uses what looks like some of the Plantard Priory insignia [but that means nothing, I could get old publications of the Priory and use its insignia to build a new Priory using said insignia and claim I have a pedigree passed from LOUIS VAZART] but it's all irrelevant because Sandri was dismissed from this Order [SEE HERE]. But it is even more irrelevant because there are so many Priory of Sion's operating - who's the best to believe? It seems to me the more authentic trail to follow is that of the original Plantard Priory with the secondary name of CIRCUIT.
Sandri reported; 'We are in the presence of a real campaign that targets a character or a company that acts in the field of occult.'
He is known to operate in the occult world. He was a member and spokesman for SNFOCOS (Syndicat National Force Ouvrière des Cadres des Organismes Sociaux), a socialist trade union for managers in the public sector. According to Massimo Introvigne, Sandri is ‘a well-known figure in the French esoteric milieu'. He appears to contribute to Esoteric conferences such as this one in 2000 - La "religion" des Maqons: de I 'ésotérique au religieux Bibliotheque Nationale de France, conference 10.5.2000. - Gino Sandri, 'Theosophie et Franc-Maçonnerieen milieu protestant a Genève au XIXe siecle'.
Sandri's suggestions mean that different groups in the 'field of the occult' create and pursue campaigns against other 'occult groups'. I mean, we saw it advertised in au Pilori way back in the 50's rubbishing Plantard! Did Plantard become some sort of later target? Or perhaps his group that he created was a target? And what are all these silly occult groups doing anyway?
One other point Lincoln raised when Plantard circulated a letter of resignation from the Priory was deemed important enough for Lincoln to cite;
''There was one other statement of interest in M. Plantard's letter. It was appended as a postscript: 'I also formally oppose the publication of correspondence between General de Gaulle and myself, as well as that with Marshal Juin or Henri, Comte de Paris. These documents, stolen from 37 rue St Lazare, Paris, are confidential and remain "state secrets", even though offered for sale....'
It seems this burglary at 37 rue St Lazare was a big issue! Did it really happen? Is it a smoke-screen?
In an extract from another book book - 'The Key to the Sacred Pattern' [1997] - Lincoln elaborates on a meeting he had with Philippe de Chérisey (p154) about the famous Saunière Parchments. This meeting took place around the time of death of de Chérisey in July 1985 [that is, in the timeline of all these events mentioned above];
" .....Can I take another look at the parchment photographs?' With only minimal hesitation, he [Chérisey] opens his briefcase and hands them to me. 'Why add the marks' I ask. 'To amuse the laity' he replied. 'But why?' I insist. He shrugs 'I'm an entertainer.' It is clear that I am to get no straight answers. But - perhaps simply because it was to hand - he adds another fragment. Picking a few sheets from his case, he says: 'I'm writing an explanation of the codes. I'll send you a copy. You'll be amused'. But I am never to see it1. Nor am I ever to get any closer to the 'parchment originals'. Sadly Philippe de Cherisey died suddenly in July 1985."
An added footnote by Lincoln is explained as follows: 1] There is reason to suspect that this document may have been part of the haul of stolen Priory papers' which figured in the Chaumeil imbroglio'.
Ignoring for now that Lincoln is shown photographs of the Parchments whereas Chaumeil shows on camera [in the BBC's History of a Mystery] paper photocopies of the famous 'parchments' [see below] and claims that Plantard wrote the red text on the smaller document - it seems Lincoln also briefly saw a few sheets of paper, said by Chérisey to be 'an explanation of the codes'. This does indeed sound like the manuscript Stone & Paper/Pierre et Paper. As you can see from Lincoln's footnote he suspects the document was part of an 'imbroglio' involving Chaumeil. Were the stolen Priory papers the same stolen from 37 Rue St Lazare? Lincoln does not elaborate on his 'reasons to suspect' this .... but if correct, may be the source of the rather serious grudge against J-L Chaumeil.
Many researchers have expressed suspicion regarding the text published as Stone & Paper and its provenance by Chaumeil. Chaumeil claims that under oath in the early 80's [when Chérisey allegedly gave him this 44 page document] he was told he could not release the document or publish it until Chérisey had died and even then it was to be 20 years after that death [which he did in his book The Priory of Sion: Shedding Light on the Treasure and Legacy of Rennes-le-Chateau and the Priory of Sion [2010]. As far as I know Chaumeil has never produced any evidence that supports this claim and I have not seen anything written down from Chérisey stipulating his wishes. Some feel it was an opportune time for Chaumeil to publish when he did as it rode on the coat tails of the phenomenal success of the Da Vinci Code, the novel essentially about the Holy Blood,Holy Grail book thesis.
Paul Smith [who continually highlights how important Chaumeil was to his own research] claims on his website HERE that;
"This was .... how Jean-Luc Chaumeil acquired the copies of the two parchments that were published in Gérard de Sède’s 1967 book, L’Or de Rennes. Because Plantard hoped Chaumeil would publish Stone and Paper..... '
And in the BBC's 1996 documentary History of a Mystery Chaumeil himself said that;
'Plantard trusted me because I was writing a book about him .... and he gave me the original parchments...'
Smith continues;
'Both Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérsiey admitted that the parchments contained in Gérard de Sède’s 1967 book L’Or de Rennes were forgeries after de Sède ran off with the royalties. This inspired Philippe de Chérisey to write his document Stone and Paper. Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey later teamed-up with Jean-Luc Chaumeil to work on another book. Philippe de Chérisey wanted to deposit Stone and Paper in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, but Plantard advised against it, hoping it would be published in the forthcoming planned book – but Chaumeil made his own decisions – Plantard’s name was not on the contract to Le Trésor du Triangle d’Or like it was on the contract to Gérard de Sede’s book L’Or de Rennes. Therefore Stone and Paper was not published by Chaumeil as hoped by Plantard, although Le Trésor du Triangle d’Or did contain a transcript of an interview with Philippe de Chérisey where he stated he forged the parchments (pages 79-80)".
Several things stated here certainly do not add up. Firstly Chaumeil never wrote a book about Plantard! Secondly, as we saw above, Plantard's anger wasn't really anything to do with the 1967 book, but more to do with Gérard de Sède publishing a book in 1977, a rehash of the 1967 L'OR DE RENNES. The book Chaumeil eventually published was Le Trésor du Triangle d’Or. Thirdly, is Smith trying to say that Chaumeil, who had an opportunity to publish Stone & Paper way back then [in the 70's] chose not to do so because 'Chaumeil made his own decisions'? That because Plantard's name was not on the contract with Chaumeil for Le Trésor du Triangle d’Or Plantard couldn't make Chaumeil do what he wanted & publish Stone & Paper [I'm actually laughing as I write this because it is laughable]. Fourthly, as Smith reports that the Chaumeil book did 'contain a transcript of an interview with Philippe de Chérisey where he stated he forged the parchments' - are you telling me Chaumeil settled for that rather than the original Stone & Paper document in it's entirety which had been offered to him on a plate by Plantard? A document that could have proved Parchment forgeries? I don't think so!
Smith also writes on his website in relation to this Chaumeil book that:
'Pierre Plantard gave him the two “original parchments” of which Gérard de Sède had received only photocopies of'.
But Chaumeil didn't get the originals, he got photocopies, the same ones that de Sède got [see picture below]. Lincoln is the only person known to have seen photos, which he considers the originals. That sets off a whole trail - the originals are photos!
Above - Chaumeil showing the photocopied parchments given to him by Plantard. He claims that the written text in red is Plantards own hand claiming the documents are photocopies of the original documents Gérard de Sède used in 'L'Or de Rennes'. Only they aren't, because the dots etc are not on the document - so are different from the ones used by de Sede.
Lincoln said:
"The parchments, as reproduced in de Sède - and in every other book and film since (including my own) - have many dots, strokes and accents inserted into the spaces between the lines of text. Many researchers have spent much time in attempting to wrest some sort of sense from these marks. The photographs i am shown demonstrate that these are not present in the originals. They have been added in blue ink, clearly visible on the glossy surface of the prints. These are de Cherisey's 'confections'".
[Before continuing I would like to add this is incorrect. Only de Sède got the parchments with the dots, strokes and accents inserted into spaces between the lines of text. Everyone else who had 'copies' of the parchments got the clean copies as I call them. Lincoln's account was that he saw the clean photographs. But he also saw photographs with blue ink additions 'clearly visible on the glossy surface of the prints'. I have speculated elsewhere on this site that the important copies of these parchments were indeed the ones where Chérisey has added to them. And by sleight of hand you can see in this the origins of how Chérisey would be able to say the Parchments were fake, being the joker than he was!
Below is what de Sède published;
Below is what [in 2006] Chaumeil published his 'Testament of the Priory of Sion". Here is a photograph i took of the Small Parchment from the book - with the best will in the world you can see the document is different from de Sede's.
Looks like Chaumeil got a photocopy of the clean photograph! And as we look more at it why does this alleged paper copy not have the red hand written text on it that Chaumeil claimed Plantard wrote? VERY strange! Oh the machinations! And further, if both de Sede and Chaumeil received the same photocopies why does de Sède's photocopy not have the red ink caption on it either?
There are several comments to be made about Lincoln's observations:
1) When he refers to the photographs he saw, with the dots and strokes added on to the surface of the photo - how come - if there are two versions, that he eventually was able to publish the 'clean' copy [pictured below]? Did he make an assumption that Cherisey was tinkering about with the 'original' clean photo for no particular reason? What did he think the blue ink additions were? Indeed, we may also ask - what were the additions over the photographs for? [pictured below].
2) The question then - is how de Sède came by copies with dots and strokes on them because his was the first publication? He already claimed to have obtained - "by post"[reported by Jean-Luc Chameil] - copies of the famous manuscripts on a day in "February 1964" [Gérard de Sède, L’Or de Rennes – Signé : Rose+Croix,l’énigme de Rennes-le-Château, Éditions de l’Œil duSphinx, 2007 [1967, 1977].
It just doesnt make sense. None of it makes any sense!
3) It is clear that any code added to the Small Parchment was done by Chérisey, according to Lincoln’s observation. This concurs with later Plantard comments. He said the fourth parchment [implying one single document] found by Sauniere was the original on which de Chérisey had devised a modified version. According to Plantard this document had a coded message on each side of the page. The two texts interacted together, so for example, if the document was held up to the light and viewed 'something else' would be seen. This suggests a kind of superimposition technique - a technique of placing one image on top of an already-existing image, usually to add to an overall image effect, but also sometimes used to conceal something. The technique is used in cartography to produce photomaps & for superimposing grid lines & contour lines & and other linear or textual mapping features over aerial photographs. In other words the single document had just been modified. Plantard was implying that Chérisey's chief modification of this single document was to simply reproduce the two sides as separate pages and not to the original scale. Lincoln wrote; "we were told that both ciphered texts were forgeries ...we challenged this assertion,.... M. Plantard conceded that the forgeries were closely based on the originals. In other words Chérisey hadnt 'concocted' them, but had copied them and Chérisey had only made a few additions. When these additions were deleted what remained were the original texts".
Much later authors Andrews and Schellenberger realised that Chérisey had added the cipher message [beregere pas de tentation] to produce the same information that the 'tilted square' geometry had yielded within the large document itself. For them the hidden cipher message 'identified a square to be placed on a map at 15 degrees to lines of latitude and longitude'. The purpose of Parchment 2 [Dagobert document] was seemingly to augment the map information in Parchment 1. However, as they noted, it was possible that someone could deduce the 'tilted square' with only an incomplete knowledge of the role of Parchment 1. On searching for the squares location, this someone would require some other data to 'break the deadlock'. For them Chérisey has added to the parchment [the cipher] to contribute to the 'preservation of knowledge'. He understood the 'titled square' geometry, according to Andrews and Schellenberger, and produced the cipher to produce the same end result. Andrews and Schellenberger also mention that the Devils Armchair may have been used in another shceme, which de Chérisey co-opted into the cipher.
In all this seemingly silly playing between various individuals regarding documents and files etc Lincoln - it must be said - appeared to hold a low opinion of Jean Luc Chaumeil [when I met Vazart and his clique, they expressed the same to me. If my memory serves me right, they said Chaumeil was always 'on the other side of the glass, knocking to try and come in, always looking in']. Lincoln described a rather childish reaction by Chaumeil when PLANTARD decided to appear in person in the famous BBC interview [part of the Chronicle series] right at the last minute, when the prior arrangement was for Chaumeil to be the 'spokesperson' of the Priory of Sion. Lincoln provides this as the reason Chaumeil 'turned' on Plantard viz;
"Some few years later, I was preparing my third BBC film on Rennes-le-Château. Pierre Plantard, in his role as Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion, had agreed to cooperate and said that he would appoint someone to speak on screen as their spokesman.To my amusement, this spokesman proved to be Chaumeil. All was prepared for the filming, which was to take place in a small Parisian art gallery owned by Chaumeil’s mother. As mama was brushing her son’s hair for his appearance before the camera Plantard, at the very last moment, decided that he needed no spokesman – he would speak for himself. I was delighted – Chaumeil and his mother were incensed. I suspect that it was this incident that launched Chaumeil’s hostility to myself, the Prieuré, Plantard and all his works."
Lincoln also speaks of Chaumeil in disparaging terms calling him a "so called expert" .... who is now wheeled out as [an] expert" [on Rennes-le-Chateau]. And in the misty annals of researcher jealousies, these suggestions swirl about the stealing of private files. Chaumeil intimates that Plantard et al turned on him because he was turning up the false claims of all those concerned.
On Tuesday 22nd September 2009, Lincoln wrote this on his blog:
"I have promised to deal further with the curious attitude of Jean-Luc Chaumeil, the BBC’s now preferred “expert" in the matter of Rennes-le-Château. The story is amusing if unimportant, but it demonstrates how easily fantasy can become accepted fact. It began in 1973, when I received a letter from Gérard de Sède. (See my Key to the Sacred Pattern - pp116 et seq). In it, he told me that with ‘one of his colleagues’, he had found Bérenger Saunière’s treasure and he was prepared to offer me photographs. I did not fall for what was an obvious ‘con’ and the fraudulent photographs were eventually sold to a magazine. (Charivari, No 18, Paris, Oct-Dec 1973). The accompanying article, titled The treasure exists – we have seen it, was written by de Sède’s colleague - who proved to be the said Jean-Luc Chaumeil. What sort of ‘expert’ is this? One must certainly question his reliability!"
But then again Chaumeil has his perspective. He has said in the past that he was always a target once he started turning up all the false information about Plantard.
In an interview with the Gazette de Rennes-le-Château Chaumeil said in response to a question posed by the Gazette: ... at this time a character appeared whose role still seems quite obscure today!
Chaumeil replied;
'You are referring to Mathieu Paoli who stole [or perhaps 'hid' [editor]] from me a number of files on Madeleine Blancassal, Henri Lobineau and Serge Roux to publish them in his book that was to be published by Belfond to finally end up in Switzerland. With his real name, Ludwig Scheswig, Mathieu was a curious character using each other to achieve other ends, hidden those... Friend of Pierre Carnac, his real name Doru Todericiou, he sought to identify a large pierced dish, of Visigothic origin, seen in an American archeologist named Paterson, a great friend of the Countess of Gogüe, in relation to the Countess of Pierrefeu, specialist in the Cathars. After interviewing Professor Niel, meeting Déodat Roché who spoke of angels in an extraordinary way, I went to Geneva to see the Countess and Professor Paterson, then I visited a magnificent crypt... Back in Paris, I found under the door negative photos that I had analysed at the Museum of Saint-Germain-en-Laye! Apart from the pierced dish, the photos slipped by Paoli were replicas of Petroassa's treasure according to the conservative M. Duval. We later learned thanks to Doru that Mathieu Paoli wanted to play the secret agents in Israel by practising the double game with the Egyptians. He would have been shot dead! Still, it will always remain the enigma of the "Pierced Dish" like replicas! A real marquis'. [my translation].
I may add here that Chaumeil is specific - the files were those on Madeleine Blancassal, Henri Lobineau and Serge Roux.
There is a chapter in Chaumeil's book The Priory of Sion: Shedding Light on the Treasure and Legacy of Rennes-le-Chateau and the Priory of Sion referring to 'a' treasure - a rather strange episode where he and the American archaeologist Paterson [linked to Schleswig by Chaumeil] visit a mysterious secret villa in Geneva after talks with one Déodat Roché. Chaumeil was escorted to the villa in a narrative piece loaded with dark sinister undertones! I presume this villa is where the magnificent crypt he refers to above is to be found ....?
So now Chaumeil may be referring to stolen files from his home?
It was French journalist Claude Jacquemart who claimed Paoli's real name was Ludwig Scheswig in “Á propos des ‘Archives de Prieuré de Sion’” in Le Charivari No 19, (1974), so presumably this is where Chaumeil got his information, as he wrote for this magazine. Rather interestingly Claude was the son of journalist Noël Jacquemart. Noël was mobilised in 1939 during the war and at the Liberation, he went to Paris to create a press group that included several professional newspapers including L'Écho de la presse et de la publicité, L'Écho des positaires, Gaieté-magazine, Sonovision, etc. From 1957, he added to his title portfolio the right-wing satirical newspaper, Le Charivari, of which he became the editor-in-chief and which he revived from the ashes, with the help of the cartoonist Pierre Pinatel. Close to the extreme right, and the OAS, like his son Claude, Noël has to face several investigations/judicial indictments. In 1962, he was arrested and kept in custody for a few days, while his son Claude was wanted and exiled in Belgium [Claude returned to France in the 1970s, to work at Le Charivari]. In 1963, the offices of L'Écho de la presse et de la publicité were the subject of a curious burglary, in search of documents [Editorial Le Monde, "After the "burglary" of the offices of "L'Écho de la presse et de la publicité", Le Monde, March 6, 1963 (read online]. That same year he was prosecuted for offending the Head of State, General de Gaulle, in Le Charivari. He was sentenced to prison, a fine and is removed from the electoral rolls. Reactions are strong within the news profession. The previous prison sentence of a journalist dates back to 1875 and President Mac-Mahon. The prison sentence is canceled on appeal.
It is after the war that Noel Jacquemart helps one Henry Coston and other collaborationist authors. When they are released they are given a new start by Jacquemart. In Issue #18 Le Charivari, 1973, the "The Archives" and "Statutes of the Association of the Priory of Sion' [founded by] Pierre Plantard, aka Chyren", in “Annemasse, May 7, 1956 are reproduced.
New research by John Saul [in his excellent book, An Extra Player on the Playing Field of History] he claims that Plantard may have been in contact with this Henry Coston in his very early years during the time of the publications of Vaincre and CIRCUIT and through him gained access to private Masonic files and information..... Saul contends that Coston;
“salvaged Édouard Drumont's notorious anti -Dreyfusard weekly La Libre Parole and formed the "Anti-Jewish Youth". Coston also contributed to the caustic wartime publication Au Pilori, notorious for its denunciations of French Resistants...”
We famously know that Au Pilori had a run in with Plantard! Coston is known to have been close to the editor of Au Pilori. Lincoln again however writes;
'There is one other piece of evidence which weighs heavily in favour of M. Plantard, Alpha Galates and Vaincre. Among the most scurrilous publications in occupied France during the war was a vicious satirical magazine named Au pilori ..... fervently pro-Nazi, rabidly anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic. It was devoted to ferreting out Jews and Freemasons or alleged Jews and Freemasons, publishing names and addresses and generally seeking to help, as well as to curry favour with, the Gestapo. Anyone attacked by Au pilori cannot have been 'all bad'. And on 19 November 1942, Au pilori published a sneeringly satirical commentary on M. Plantard, on Alpha Galates and on Vaincre. It made no explicit accusations. But it sought, most maliciously, to ridicule all three. And it published M. Plantard's address, which, in the circumstances, was tantamount to encouraging harassment and vandalism by party thugs, if not by the Gestapo. The whole of the third issue of Vaincre consisted of a defense against the attack by Au pilori. One member of Alpha Galates was declared to have been expelled, and it was implied that he had leaked information to Au pilori. In attempting to rebut Au pilori, Vaincre re-stated the objectives of Alpha Galates. These were described as:
1... the unity of France within its geographic frontiers and the abolition of the line of demarcation between German-occupied zones and those under Vichy control;
2... the mobilisation of all French energy and resources for the defense of the nation and, particularly, an appeal to the young for obligatory service;
3.... the creation of a 'new western order', a 'young European chivalry' whose keynote was to be 'Solidarity'. Within each European nation, this organization, known as 'Solidarity', was to represent 'the first stage of the United States of the West.'
To judge from the circumstances, Vaincre's defense against Au pilori was neither convincing nor successful. Within another three issues, Vaincre closed down, and the evidence suggests that it did so under pressure. With the disappearance of Vaincre, M. Plantard's activities and career seem to pass into a period of temporary obscurity. But certain of the themes enunciated by Vaincre would later surface again, not only under the auspices of the Prieuré de Sion, but under those of other organisations as well'.
John Saul asks;
"Had Plantard stolen Masonic files confiscated and collected by Coston’s CAD? .... before the war, Plantard had written to the head of government, Édouard Daladier. Then 16th December 1940, he had offered "his men' to Petain to combat a supposed Jewish-Masonic plot.... and using the name "Captain Way", he attempted to tie his fortunes to those of Charles de Gaulle as France teetered on the brink of civil war in the midst of its Algerian troubles. Once again he had no obvious success, though he did get his phone number into the national newspaper Le Monde on June 8–9, 1958, informing potential followers of his new born Gaulist organisation that they could contact him by dialing WAY-PAIX (929-7249).
John Saul speculates; I would like to guess that someone ....... had known Plantard years earlier, or had recognised his name from familiarity with the long defunct Vaincre. I think Philippe de Cherisey called, I think Henry Coston may have called’.
Saul also documents that;
“During the Nazi period in France some six thousand Masons were taken in for questioning and an estimated 549 failed to survive the experience. Others emerged maimed. Lodges were systematically ransacked and archives confiscated. It was not just active Masons who were targeted; it was anyone who had ever been a Mason. Commencing 1 April 1941, membership lists and archives going back into the 19th century were grouped together under the auspices of an entity known as the "CAD", the Center d'Action et de Documentation, which operated out of the confiscated building of the Grand Lodge at 8 rue Puteaux in Paris, a ten-minute walk from where Plantard had shared the maid's rooms with his mother on Place Malesherbes. It was run by Coston'.
Saul again:
“....Marshal Petain had issued an edict "to seek, compile, preserve and edit" all Masonic documents throughout France, sites to be raided was the Lyon headquarters of the Rite of Memphis and one of the very first Misraim. On the same day, September 25, 1941, the home of its Grand Master Constant Chevillon, was also raided, and by late 1942 archives of the Rite of Memphis from 1839 to 1862 and archives of the Rite of Misraïm from 1845 to 1892 appeared in a listing of confiscated Masonic materials. The person in charge of the CAD was Henry Coston and he appears to have been fully in charge, for references were made to "Coston's CAD".
Why was there such a clamp down on Masons? What information did they hold? Saul continues;
“....the Memphis and the Misraim groups both claimed Egyptian connections ..Memphis and Misraim also claimed affinities with the Knights of the Temple (the Templars) and although these claims seem flimsy, they cannot be dismissed out of hand.... Not all the theorising was outlandish, however, and without specifying Memphis or Misraim but with a passing mention of the Philadelphis, it was said that during Bonaparte's "Mission to Egypt, 1798-1801, certain Masons had discovered a "Druse Masonry of Lebanon. The French poet and essayist Gérard de Nerval (1808-1855) later wrote of such traditions, providing Masonic materials found nowhere else. Yet we have only Nerval's word that he had obtained them from a Druse source. My own guess is that Nerval had first heard of such things from his father, Etienne Labrunie, a surgeon in Bonaparte's army in Germany and Austria. Dr. Labrunie belonged to a military lodge, "Les Enfants de Mars à l'Orient" of the 27th Light Infantry Regiment, to which also belonged the proselyte Freemason Dominique-Jean Larrey and other veterans of the Egyptian campaign. Academics continue to debate Nerval's sources, by contrast, there is less need to speculate about the immediate source of Jean Richer, for Professor Richer had been the president of the "Société Gérard de Nerval”. The journals of this now defunct group were published by "Les Editions Belisane", which also advertised "Re-editions” of out-of print books on Rennes-le-Chateau. .... In conjunction with a brief mention of the Philadelphes and of the reputed discovery of a Druse Masonry, the Masonic dgnitary and historian Robert Ambelain (1907-1997) reported ... a Gnostic expedition." While not confirmed, Ambelain's report is certainly suggesting an hermetic survival" discovered in Cairo during Bonaparte's mission, given credibility in the light of the subsequent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1946-1947) and of the Gnostic Gospels at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945". The traditions of Memphis-Misraim are said to have been "especially" derived from a Masonic Philadelphes of Narbonne" group called the "Primitive Rite of the Chefdebien (1753-1814). All six sons of the marquis became members, established around 1779 by the Marquis ....the Philadelphes of Narbonne and members of the de Chefdebien family remained active in Masonic affairs through a number of generations. The group received a second wind in 1798 during Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign when unidentified officers in the French army installed a lodge in Cairo. The Rite reached the area of Rennes-le-Château following the initiation of Charles Marie Benjamin d'Hautpoul-Félines (1772-1853), whose mother was Marie d'Hautpoul-Rennes, whose own mother was Marie de Negri d'Ablès, whose name of course is attached to the story of the Affair at Rennes by Plantard and Cherisey, using the missing headstone of her grave to create the famous Sauniere Parchments and the code associated with it. The group supposedly ceased activities in 1814 around the time of the death of the Marquis de Chefdebien," but in 1815 the Rite was reputed to have been reestablished in Montauban by an entirely individual named Samuel Honis, supposedly an initiator of the Cairo lodge. This reestablished Rite was given the name “Disciples of Memphis” and its Grand Master was Gabriel Mathieu Marconis who had also been in Egypt with Bonaparte. This figure was [also] related to Marie de Negri d'Ablès. What we should also remember is that no later than 1897 a tutor hired by the Chefdebiens had been abruptly dismissed, apparently following a theft of documents, and this tutor was Alfred Saunière, Bérenger Saunière’s brother. Then, some six decades later, texts by J-E. Marconis de Nègre concerning the sage Ormus and the Disciples of Memphis would be taken up by Pierre Plantard as the foundation of his Priory of Sion'.
Alfred Saunière, Bérenger Saunière’s brother allegedly stealing files! So far also Henri Coston & CAD, Pierre Plantard, Gerard de Sède, Jean Luc Chaumeil, Mathieu Paoli!
As we saw it was Belisane which published out of print books on Rennes-le-Chateau. The Occultist Raymond Abellio [pseudonym of Georges Soulès, who worked with Eugène Deloncle, co-founder of La Cougoule and whose niece Édith Cahier, married Robert Mitterrand, brother of François Mitterrand] was involved with this Bélisane publishing house, founded in 1973. Plantard himself could have had some albeit family distant links to these people because of his proximity to President Mitterrand. Guy Patton reports that Pierre supposedly had a cousin, Jean Plantard, who was son of François PLANTARD. This François Plantard was very close to Andre Rousselet and Rousselet was himself a confidante to the late French ex-president François Mitterrand. And Rousselet’s adopted daughter, Chantal, married Pierre Plantard’s cousin Jean, the son of this François Plantard. Pierre Plantard is said to have kept in regular touch with his extended family over the years.
Rousselet admits to having been a Pétainist around the age of 16 (1938), which brought him closer to Robert Hersant later and also allowed him to better understand François Mitterrand. Hersant was a member of the Socialist Youth (SFIO) of Rouen, where he met the anarcho-trade unionist Alexandre Hébert. After the defeat of 1940, he went from Rouen to Paris to try the political adventure. He founded the "Young Front", a pro-Nazi group located in the orbit of the French National-Collectivist Party (PFNC) of the former radical socialist journalist Pierre Clémenti. The main activity of the "Young Front" was to distribute the anti-Semitic newspaper Au Pilori, one of the most extremists of the collaboration, subsidised by the German authorities, and to whom directed their ire at Pierre Plantard. Plantard himself appears to create youth groups etc just as Hersant did! Perhaps this was the 'done thing' during occupation of the Nazi's?
Synchronicity is a strange thing though - after the death of Robert Hersant, part of his colossal business empire, Socpresse, was sold to Serge Dassault. Serge Dassault, a French engineer, industrialist, billionaire businessman, press boss and politician was the son of famous Marcel Dassault, best known as an aeronautics personality and CEO of the Dassault Group [that he created].
A Frenchman, Michaël Bellec, told the story of his own father, who worked with a Joseph Laborie. According to Bellec, Laborie worked at Dassault, and that;
"Joseph Laborie, searched the Rennes-le-Chateau area and discovered a mine; he was convinced that there was a treasure...! He was a former engineer for Dassault, as well as a test pilot. He had known Robert Charroux. On the ground, he worked alone with his wife, Madeleine, namely at the Bezu. They came twice a year to the area, but the task of clearing was titanic and, [as Bellec reported], his father dropped out of this titanic undertaking, who was working also with Laborie. Laborie searched and was the last person to enter the mine. He had seen the Treasury made up of tiles of gold in very large quantities. He had to crawl through a gallery dilapidated over 100 metres, pass an underground river, and had seen human skeletons, and, finally, reached a large cavity where the tiles and the gold bars were there, for a total of several tons. But as the Gallery was threatening to collapse, he felt a profound malaise and did not continue. At the end of the 1960s, Laborie took a bar of gold, and tried to bring it back, but the risks involved (underground river, landslide), he abandoned it to save his own skin. He found the exit through the lights of the Dauphiné by his wife. It is true that at the time, it was easier to get close to the mine. Further unsuccessful attempts followed in 1973, and then with two Germans! He also opened the first tomb of Arques in which he found 2 coffins but no documents, or treasure. He met Albert Louage of Lille, who was as passionate as him. They searched all around in 1975, with Henri Buthion, owner of the SAUNIÈRE estate. They sought access to the Church. Henri Buthion projected movies in the great Hall of the Castle; my dad took this opportunity to search the Castle. He then met Breton researchers, and they excavated again at the Bezu'. [The above is roughly translated from the following site: www.portail-rennes-le- chateau.com/chercheurs-bellec.html [thanks Johan].
Does the descriptions of Bellec about searching for a treasure remind you of anything? Surely Philippe de Chérisey and his last chapter of his novel 'CIRCUIT' - l'alibi d'O? See HERE.
If Plantard did indeed get access to Masonic files from Coston's CAD perhaps that can explain the knowledge Plantard had that others could not explain where he got from? For example de Santillana and von Dechend, authors of Hamlet’s Mill? They wrote;
"We should be glad to learn, moreover, where the archaeologist Pierre Plantard got hold of the information on “Canopus, l’oeuil sublime de l’architecte, qui s’ouvre trous les 70 ans pour contempler l’Univers.” (p. 299)
They were referring to a quote found in de Sède’s book on the Knights Templar of Gisors:
“The Chariot of the Sea, the White Ship of Juno with the sixty-three lights of which Canopus is one, the sublime eye of the architect, which opens every seventy years to contemplate the Universe, the ship Argo that transported the Golden Fleece, in Christianity the modest barque of Peter. It is the symbolic Ark where nothing profane can penetrate without incurring punishment: ‘To the sacriligious a fall, to the thief death within a year.’ Only those who are capable of working the cube of the wood of Mars – that magic ‘die’ entrusted to the vigilance of two children: Castor and Pollux – to perfection, in every sense, can enter there.”
Not much is known about the Ludwig Scheswig mentioned above, although he is often mentioned as being an acquaintance of Doru Todericiou/Todericiu (a Romanian born writer working in France, mainly known for his writings on Atlantis and its purported connection with Bimini), for others Paoli/Scheswig was nothing more than pseudonyms used by Todericiu.
The novel CIRCUIT, which we bagan with, itself may have a muddled history and perhaps another author - or more likely a joint authorship between Cherisey and Plantard especially as Plantard had taken a back seat in being identified as author of certain works. Plantard wrote in his 'miss au point';
Faced with these events, Mr. Christian BOURGOIS, Managing Director of Editions JULLIARD, and myself had the idea of publishing L'OR DE RENNES under the name of Philippe de CHERISEY. It was then that Gérard de SÈDE decided to sign the original contract - this was on 13 January 1967".
Many claim that Plantard was annoyed about royalties, that all he cared about was money. I find this odd - Plantard could have written a book himself and cashed in if he wanted to! Especially after Holy Blood, Holy Grail. He really could have cashed in! But he never did. It seems he was more or less interested in what we would nowadays call occult subjects and had a specific view of how France should be in its future. All this would have been amplified during the War. Perhaps he did come across information from everyone who was stealing files from each other in this murky background?