MONA LISA SMIRK
http://www.y-zine.com/monalisa4.htm
info@priory-of-sion.com
MONA LISA'S SMIRK
The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Conspiracy
The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus' identity is true. So what is the truth? Let's take a look.
* Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?
* Was Jesus' divinity invented by Constantine and the church?
* Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?
* Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?
Has a gigantic conspiracy resulted in the reinvention of Jesus? According to the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, that is exactly what happened. Several of the book's assertions regarding Jesus smack of conspiracy. For example, the book states:
Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.1
Could this shocking assertion from Dan Brown's best-selling book be true? Or is the premise behind it just the stuff of a good conspiracy novel--on a par with a belief that aliens crash-landed at Roswell, New Mexico, or that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?
The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus' identity is true. So what is the truth? Let's take a look.
* Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?
* Was Jesus' divinity invented by Constantine and the church?
* Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?
* Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?
Has a gigantic conspiracy resulted in the reinvention of Jesus? According to the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, that is exactly what happened. Several of the book's assertions regarding Jesus smack of conspiracy. For example, the book states:
Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.1
Could this shocking assertion from Dan Brown's best-selling book be true? Or is the premise behind it just the stuff of a good conspiracy novel--on a par with a belief that aliens crash-landed at Roswell, New Mexico, or that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?
Quite a stir has been made about the fictional book and movie The DaVinci Code. Here are some of the claims made by the movie paired with historical facts.
DaVinci Code Facts & Fiction
Claim 1 - Constantine decided what books to include in the bible during the Council of Nicea 325 A.D. the rest of the books were gathered and burned. Constantine originated the idea of the divinity of Jesus - His followers did not consider him to be God at that time
FACT: There was a council in 325 primarily to consider the heresy of Arius - who stated Jesus was not God but God's first creation - the council condemned Arias and created the Nicean creed - which did not create but confirmed the deity of Jesus - the vote was not narrow as some suppose but was by a wide margin only 2 dissenters out of 300 bishops. The cannon of scripture was not a discussion at this time. Constantine did not interfere with the council's deliberations. The books we know now were already in circulation and in general acceptance among the churches long before nicea 325 a.d. Jesus was worshipped as God from the earliest days of Christianity. Peter acknowledged him as the Christ - "Whom say ye that I am... Thou art the Christ son of the living God" Matt 16:16
Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and My God - John 20:28. There is no question that the apostles were willing to die for what they believed to be true - That Jesus was God manifested in the flesh and commissioned them to take the gospel to the world. The divinity of Jesus was not a creation of the Emperor Constantine
Claim 2.) The Gnostic bible gives us additional and more reliable information about Jesus than the bible.
FACT: Even though a few of the books we now have were disputed at the time of the council of Nicea there was no effort made to exclude other books because they challenged the authority of the church. Other books not included in the bible at that time fell out of general usage because they were recognized as unreliable. The Gnostic Gospels were among this group they were not deliberately discredited or destroyed but they saw limited circulation because they were generally recognized to be inauthentic and considered far lessauthentic than the eye witness biblical accounts. The Gnostic gospels were written over 100 years after the events - no eye witness accounts and cannot be linked to any apostles who were with Jesus or who witnessed to his ministry.
3 criteria used to evaluate text in order to be included in the bible
1.) directly connected to an apostle
2.) orthodox no contradiction to old testament doctrine
3.) it had to be generally accepted by churches in the known world not just by one group (such as the gnostics)
The books of the bible meet that criteria, the Gnostic Gospels do not.
Claim 3.) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had a daughter. Jesus must have been married because it is unusual for a rabbi not to be married.
FACT: Those who speculate about Jesus having a relationship with Mary Magdalene usually do so referring to The Gospel of Philip a (Gnostic Gospel) This gospel refers to Mary as being Jesus' companion ( in aramaic is translated spouse). Once again this account was written over 100 years after the fact and IS NOT an eye witness account. There is no indication in the bible or in history that Jesus was ever married - there is no evidence Jesus ever had a child. Numerous examples exist of adult males remaining unmarried.
As far as Davinci is concerned - In the picture of the Last Supper - The apostle John does look effeminate but this depiction was not unusual. Many pictures of Jesus, disciples and men of that time are depicted as having long hair and fair features.
Da Vinci's own notes say the figure in painting is the apostle John not Mary
Claim 4.) Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church after his resurrection. They worked to discredit Mary to begin a long line of male domination in the church
FACTS: Dan Brown and others use the Gnostic Gospels to prove the church is sexists and chauvinistic. However within these same "gospels" from Thomas to the gospel of Mary - women are not viewed in a positive light either these are the text he uses to say the church has suppressed the role of women. however 100 years ago pentacostles ordained women as ministers before women were even allowed to vote. The idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute began with the tradition in the 3rd and 4th Centuries that she was the "sinful woman" of Luke 7 and the woman taken in Adultery in John 7. Pope Gregory 1 mentioned this in a sermon in 589A.D. this was not a conserted effort to reduce her importance.
Claim 5.) The church covered up information about Jesus, Mary and their daughter and made a concerted effort to repress women through an organization called Opus Dei - .
FACT: Catholic organization Opus Dei - began in 1928 - by a spanish preist - members prodominately lay people. No proof whatsoever that the church has ever tried to supress women and keep them from obtaining their rightful place in Christ
Claim 6.) An ancient order called the Priory of Sion The knights Templar was founded in 1099 to protect the secret bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene
FACTS - Priory of Sion - the name given to a club by a frenchman, Pierre Plantard, who started the club in the 1950s NOT 1099! sometime afterward he forged several documents and placed them int he french library - later people researching grail theories found the documents and accepted them as authentic and gave credibility to the claim that it was an old and secret organization. Plantard had done time in jail for fraud and embezzlement later testified under oath that the whole concept of the Priory of Sion was a hoax and a product of his own vivid imagination - inspite of his confession the deception lives on and has become a focal point of consipiracy and intrigue.
The claims of the DaVinci Code are fiction - there is NO evidence to support the claims made.
http://www.livingos.com/?p=35
Ready for Da Vinci Code?
April 24th, 2006 by tim
The Da Vinci CodeWith the film set to be released in the next few weeks the hype surrounding this film grows by the day. Even the Archbishop of Cantebury made comment on the film in his Easter Day sermon, which was reported on national news.
I read the book about 12 months ago and it is one of those books that is hard to put down. It is a novel that sells, and not just because it appears to be having a go at the church. It is in my humble opinion a very well crafted novel. But, as the Archbishop remarks, people are attracted by the consipiracy that forms the plot.
Dan Brown begins his book with a statement:
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
And so the conspiracy begins. So has the church really been engaged in a cover-up for the past 2,000 years?
How should we respond to the book and now the film? Some christians see it as a chance for evangelsim, others are reacting very strongly to counter the claims of the book. I worry about both approaches, but what I know is that people will be talking about Jesus in the next few weeks.
The Da Vinci Code plot is immersed in the world of so-called hidden documents and history of the Christian faith. This has tended to be a world for experts and scholars, or conspiracy makers. Perhaps that adds to the mystery of it all. It will certainly raise questions for people about the orgins of the New Testament, the nature of Jesus and the chruch’s view of women and sexuality.
As we attempt to answer some of those questions, a good place to start is over at the great reJesus site:
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/davinci/
The Da Vinci Code, with over 30 million copies in print, has breathed new life into conspiracy theories surrounding the life of Jesus and the origins of the Christian faith. It raises the question...
Has the church been engaged in a cover-up for the past 2,000 years?
Dan Brown's novel is only a work of fiction, of course, but it opens with a curious claim: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." But is this true? If it is, then the Christian faith as practised by millions of people today is in trouble, with its central beliefs in the shadow of doubt.
With the movie of the book set for release on 19 May, we explore the background and extraordinary claims of The Da Vinci Code. It's a story of secret Gospels, smeared characters, bold forgeries, planted documents... and daring faith. We'll be looking at the theories and the evidence, and the lives of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and other key people.
Start exploring here
MerrySunshine
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:51 PM
I don't know much about Opus Dei.
But I have read The DaVinci Code and I have read a book or two on the history of Christianity. The easiest one is Church History in Plain Language by Shelley.
Constantine became a Christian by (a) praying to the Christian God for aid (victory) and, upon becoming victorious, (b) converting because he figured he must be on to something. Constantine did a lot to spread Christianity by making it acceptable in the Roman Empire, but he didn't make decisions about doctrine or about what should be canonized in scripture. Basically, in early 312, there was a battle for centralized control of the Roman Empire between Constantine (from the East -- around Turkey) and Maxentius from Italy. Constantine headed west to topple Maxentius and capture Rome. He encountered Maxentius's army at a bridge just outside of Rome. In a dream he say in a cross in the sky with the words "in hoc signo vinces" (in this sign you will conquer.) So he decides to pray to the God of the Christians, goes ahead and advances on Maxentius's army and, hey presto, he wins. And he saw this victory as directly attributable to the Christian God. Some historians have considered his conversion to be merely political because he still was a bad dude (like all Roman emperors) and did some rather unChristian things (conspiracy, killings, etc.). But he also maintained a Christian household, raised his kids a Christians, allowed Crhistian ministers to enojoy the same priviliges and pagan priests, abolished execution by crucifixion, built magnificent church buildings. Tellingly, after his baptism he refused to wear the imperial purple and continued to wear his baptismal robes. Anyway, the point is that The DaVinci Code makes all of this seem like a clear cut political manipulation and flat, boring history is less black and white about it. Really, it could be either, I suppose, but the true bottom line of the matter is that without Constantine's indulgence of Christianity, Christianity would not have flourished.
As for the divinity of Christ, that goes back farther than Constantine. Starting in about the year 40 or 50, the Caesars were worshiped alongside the Roman gods. The main conflict between the Roman empire and the Christians was, in fact, the requirement in the Roman Empire to swear that Caesar is Lord. It was a test of political loyalty to wear that Caesar is Lord. Christians would not do that because they believed that Christ is Lord. So Christians would refuse to swear Caesar is Lord, they'd then be suspected of various treasons, and they'd be killed in a variety of ugly and painful was. When Constantine in 312 said, "Hey, maybe I'll pray to their God," that all changed and Christians were free of such requirements and persecutions. But, at any rate, the concept of Christ as devine predates Constantine by at least 200 years or so.
Finally, canonization of scripture was not a "ta-da! it's done" sort of action by Constantine. The OT canon was easy -- Jews in Palestine during the arly hears of chrsitianity has a canon of 39 books, which now make up the Protestant OT. (In Catholocism, there are additional books known as the Apocrypha that the Protestants don't recognize -- the Apocrypha can be linked to Jews outside of Palestine, the Greek Jews.) What to include in the NT was a more difficult matter. The criteria was that the books were "self-authenticating," that they were used in Christian worship, and their close association with an apostle (the 12 who were Christ's homies, basically). Discussions about what should be included began, not with Constantine, but with this guy names Marcion in around 140, who believe that the God of the OT and the God of the Christians were different entities. He rejected the entire OT and any Christian writing that favored a sort of "Jewish" reading. He was basically all about Paul's writings (which is ironic since Paul never actually lived with Jesus or worked with him -- seems that Marcion thought that Paul knew more about Jesus's teaching, than, say, Matthew, who had been one of the 12). Anyway, the discusson raged on among the Christian and peri-Christian community until around the year 400 (60 or 70 years after Constantine died) we come up with what we know as the New Testament. So Constantine had very little to do with canonization of scripture except for that his openness to Christianity made these sorts of discussions possible during the 4th centure (the 300s).
Now, some may say, "ah-ha!," then men formed the New Testament. It's a vast conspiracy and a power play. Well, I'll let Mr. Shelley address that:
In one sense, of course, Christians created the canon. Their decisions concerning the books were a part of history. In anoter sense, however, they were only recognizing those writings that had made their authority felt in the churches. The shape of the New Testament shows that the early churches' primary aim was to submit fully to the teacings of the apostles. In that purpose they shaped the character of Christianity for all time. The faith remained catholic [note catholic means simply unified] precisely becasue it was apostolic. p. 66.
And I would add that from a Christian standpoint, it only makes sense to submit to the teachings of the apostles because they were the first hand witnesses of Jesus's life and ministry. They would be the people in the best position to tell the story. That the books we have today in the New Testament are there because, in my opinion, it was God's silent hand guiding the churches in the right direction. (Of course, there will be those who will say that the "right" direction was not taken, but on that point I have to place faith in God that He did not let error pervade the world. If someone disagrees with that, well, that's their choice to stand by. I'm standing by mine.)
Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded about the church history thing, but my point is that The DaVinci Code gives Constantine too much credit for control over the Church's history. Too, the book makes a lot of claims about the Masons (Freemasons) that are far-out (according to my dad the Master Mason who has also read the book). It's a story that takes history and twists it to create a fictional world (much like our own, but nevertheless fictional) with a fictional paranoid conspiracy. The danger of books like this (not just this book, but really any sort of historical fiction) is that the reader will take what is presented in the text as objective fact. All "history" presented in the book is presented by characters with agendas to forward the plot. It's bent to create tension and intrigue and is not "the real deal." To get "the real deal" pick up a boring old history book. Brown's not an objective historian, he's an author looking to sell a book -- and he's done very well at it. ;)
Priory of Sion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses of the word "Sion", please see Sion (disambiguation).
Prieuré de Sion logo
Enlarge
Prieuré de Sion logo
The Prieuré de Sion, usually rendered in English translation as Priory of Sion (occasionally as 'Priory of Zion'), is an alleged thousand-year-old cabal featured in various conspiracy theories, as well as being listed as a factual ancient mystery religion in the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. It has been characterized as anything from the most influential secret society in Western history to a modern Rosicrucian-esque ludibrium, but, ultimately, has been shown to be a hoax created in 1956 by Pierre Plantard, a pretender to the French throne. The evidence presented in support of its historical existence has not been considered authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics, and universities, and the evidence was later discovered to have been forged and then planted in various locations around France by Plantard and his associates. Nevertheless, many conspiracy theorists insist on the truth of the Priory's role as a powerful secret society. [1]
History
[edit]
The Alleged Priory
The claims described the Priory of Sion as a secret society that was founded in the 11th century, to protect and preserve a secret involving the bloodline of Jesus Christ. The Priory allegedly created the medieval order of Knights Templar as its military arm, and had a series of Grand Masters which included such notable (and real) historical figures as Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci. The existence of the thousand-year-old Priory was supposedly "revealed" in the 1970s, via a series of documentaries and books by pseudohistory writers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, such as in their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which allegedly pieced together evidence from documents which had been found in the French National Library, as well as documents which were supposedly found in the late 1800s, hidden inside a pillar of a small church in southern France. Further attention came to the Priory when it was referred to as a factual society by the 2003 bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code.
[edit]
The Actual Priory
The real Priory of Sion is an association that was founded in 1956, in the French town of Annemasse, as the beginning of a massive hoax.
As with all associations, French law required the association to be registered with the government. It was registered with its Statutes at the Sub-Prefecture of Saint Julien-en-Genevois, in May 1956, and its registration was noted on 20 July 1956, in the Journal Officiel de la République Française. The founders and signatories are inscribed with their pseudonyms as Pierre Plantard (known as "Chyren"), André Bonhomme (known as "Stanis Bellas"), Jean Delaval, and Armand Defago. The purpose of the association according to its Statutes was entered as, "Études et entraide des membres" ("education and mutual aid of the members"). In practice, the originator of the association and its key protagonist was Pierre Plantard, its General Secretary, although its nominal head ("President") was André Bonhomme. The choice of the name, "Sion" was based on a popular local feature, a hill south of Annemasse in France, known as 'Mont Sion'.[2] "Sion" is also the standard French spelling of "Zion", originally the name of a part of Jerusalem. It had already been used in the name of previous Catholic organisations, such as the Congregation of Notre-Dame de Sion. The accompanying title, or subtitle to the name was, Chevalerie d'Institutions et Règles Catholiques d'Union Independante et Traditionaliste: this forms the acronym CIRCUIT and translates as "Knighthood of Catholic Rule and Institution and of Independent Traditionalist Union."
The Statutes and Registration Documents of the Priory of Sion were deposited on 7 May 1956, while the first issue of its journal Circuit is dated 27 May 1956 (in total, twelve numbers of the journal appeared). Considering the political instability of the French Fourth Republic, the objectives of the journal were regarded with suspicion by the local authorities. It was indicated as a "Bulletin d'Information et Défense des Droits et de la Liberté des Foyers HLM" ("News Bulletin for the Defence of the Rights and the Freedom of Council Housing"). Indeed, some of the articles took a political position in the local Council elections. Others attacked and criticized property developers of Annemasse. It also opposed the gentrification of the area. The offices of the Priory of Sion and the journal were at Plantard's council flat.
The articles of the Priory of Sion as indicated in its Statutes also desired the creation of a monastic order, but the activities of the Priory of Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its Statutes. Article VII says that its members are expected, "to carry out good deeds, to help the Catholic Church, teach the truth, defend the weak and the oppressed". There is ample evidence that it had several members, as indicated by the numerous articles contained in its journal Circuit, written by a number of different people. Towards the end of 1956 the association had aims to forge links with the local Catholic Church of the area involving a school bus service run by both the Priory of Sion and the church of St Joseph in Annemasse.
[edit]
The Hoax
Plantard hoped that the Priory of Sion would become an influential cryptopolitical irregular masonic lodge (similar to P2) dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which would promote Plantard's own claim to the throne of France.
Between 1961 and 1984 Plantard contrived a mythical pedigree of the Priory of Sion claiming that it was the offshoot of the monastic order housed in the Abbey of Sion, which had been founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the First Crusade and later absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617. The mistake is often made that this Abbey of Sion was a "Priory of Sion", but there is a difference between an abbey and a priory. Calling his original 1956 group "Priory of Sion" presumably gave Plantard the later idea to claim that his organization had been historically founded in Jerusalem during the Crusades. [citation needed]
[edit]
Forged documents
Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau, 1967
Enlarge
Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau, 1967
In order to give credibility to the fabricated lineage and pedigree, Plantard and his friend Philippe de Cherisey needed to create "independent evidence." So during the 1960s, they deposited a series of forged documents, the so-called Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau or "Secret Dossiers of Henri Lobineau," at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, in Paris. Also in the 1960s, Plantard began writing a manuscript and had a series of "medieval parchments" forged by de Cherisey which contained encrypted messages that referred to the Priory of Sion. The story that they concocted claimed that Father Bérenger Saunière had supposedly discovered these seemingly ancient parchments inside of a pillar while renovating his church in Rennes-le-Château in 1891. The story and existence of the parchments was intended to prove Plantard's claims about the Priory of Sion being a medieval society.
Plantard then enlisted the aid of author Gérard de Sède to write a book based on Plantard's manuscript and forged parchments, alleging that Sauniere had discovered a link to a hidden treasure. The 1967 book, entitled L'Or de Rennes (The Gold of Rennes) and Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau (The Accursed Treasure of Rennes Castle), became a popular read in France. It included copies of the "found" documents (the originals were of course never produced), though it provided them without any kind of translation. One of the documents was discovered to have been a reproduction of a Latin version of the Novum Testamentum (New Testament), known as the Vulgate. These versions can be precisely dated based on the wording being used, which show that the version in the book was from an edition published in 1889 -- problematic considering that the book was trying to make a case that these documents were centuries old.
[edit]
Expansion of the story
In 1969, English actor and science-fiction script-writer Henry Lincoln read Le Tresor Maudit, and became intrigued. He discovered one of the encrypted messages, which read A Dagobert II Roi et a Sion est ce tresor, et il est là mort. (Trans: "To King Dagobert II and to Sion does this treasure belong, and he is there dead."). This was an allusion to a treasure belonging to the Merovingian king Dagobert II, who had been assassinated in the 7th century. Lincoln expanded on the conspiracy theories, writing his own books on the subject, and creating a series of BBC Two documentaries in the 1970s about the mysteries of the Rennes-le-Chateau area. In response to a tip from De Sede, Lincoln claims he was also the one who "discovered" the Dossiers Secrets, a series of (planted) genealogies which appeared to further confirm the link with the line of Merovingians. The documents claimed that the Priory had been founded in 1099, and had founded the organization of the Knights Templar.
[edit]
Proof of the conspiracy
Letters in existence dating from the 1960s written by Plantard, de Cherisey and de Sede to each other confirm that the three were engaging in an out-and-out confidence trick, describing schemes on how to combat criticisms of their various allegations and how they would make-up new allegations to try and keep the whole thing going. These letters (totalling over 100) are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has also retained the original envelopes. Jean-Luc Chaumeil during the 1970s was part of the Priory of Sion cabal, and wrote books and articles about Plantard and the Priory of Sion before splitting from it during the late 1970s and exposing Plantard's past in French books.
A letter later discovered at the Sub-Prefecture of St. Julien-en-Genevois also indicated that Plantard had a criminal conviction as a con man.
[edit]
The disposition of the "real" Priory
The formally registered association was dissolved sometime after October 1956 but intermittently revived for different reasons by Plantard between 1962 and 1993, though in name and on paper only. The Priory of Sion is considered "dormant" by the Sub-Prefecture because it has indicated no activities since 1956. According to French law, subsequent references to the Priory bear no legal relation to that of 1956 and no one other than the original signatories are entitled to use its name in an official capacity. André Bonhomme played no part since 1956. He officially resigned in 1973 when he heard that Plantard was linking his name with the association, so as of last report, there is no one who is currently around who has official permission to use the name.
[edit]
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
For more details on this topic, see The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Enlarge
After reading Le Tresor Maudit, Henry Lincoln persuaded the BBC Two's factual program Chronicle to make a series of documentaries, which became quite popular and generated thousands of responses. Lincoln then joined forces with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh for further research. This led them to the pseudohistorical Secret Dossiers of Henri Lobineau at the Bibliothèque nationale, which though alleging to portray hundreds of years of medieval history, were actually all written by Plantard and de Cherisey under the pseudonym of "Philippe Toscan du Plantier". Unaware that the documents had been forged, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln used them as a major source for their book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, in which they declared as "fact" that:
* The Priory of Sion has a long history starting in AD 1099, and had illustrious Grand Masters including Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci (see full list below);
* the Knights Templar were created as the military and financial front of the Priory;
* it is sworn to returning the Merovingian dynasty, that ruled the Frankish kingdom from 447 to 751 C.E., to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem;
* the order protects these royal claimants because they believe them to be the literal descendants of Jesus and his alleged wife Mary Magdalene or, at the very least, of king David and high priest Aaron; and
* the Roman Catholic Church tried to kill off all remnants of this dynasty and their guardians, the Cathars and the Templars, during the Inquisition, in order to maintain power through the apostolic succession of Peter instead of the hereditary succession of Mary Magdalene.
The authors further asserted that the ultimate goals of the Priory of Sion are:
* the founding of a "Holy European Empire" that would become the next hyperpower and usher in a new world order of peace and prosperity;
* the establishment of a messianic mystery state religion by revealing the Holy Grail, which would prove Ebionite views and Desposyni claims; and
* the grooming and installing of a "Rex Deus" pretender on the throne of a Greater Israel.
Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln even incorporated the infamous anti-semitic tract known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (spelling Zion with an S) into their story, concluding that it actually referred to the activities of the Priory. This they viewed as the most persuasive pieces of evidence for the existence and activities of the Priory of Sion:
* The original version emanated from an irregular Masonic organization that used the name "Sion" but had nothing to do with an international Jewish conspiracy.
* The original version was not intended to be inflammatory or released publicly, but was a program for gaining control of Freemasonry.
* The person responsible for changing the text in about 1903 was Sergei Nilus in the course of his attempt to gain influence in the Court of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. The presence of esoteric cliques in the royal court led to considerable intrigue. Nilus' publication of the text resulted from his failure to succeed in wresting influence away from Papus and an otherwise unidentified "Monsieur Philippe".
* Since Nilus did not recognize a number of references in the text that reflected a background in a Christian cultural context, he did not change them. This fact established that the original version could not possibly have come from the first Zionist Congress in Basel (1897).
Accepting these factoids as the truth, some fringe Christian eschatologists viewed the Priory of Sion as a fulfillment of prophesies found in the Book of Revelation and further proof of an anti-Christian conspiracy of epic proportions.[3]
However, since modern historians do not accept The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as a serious contribution to scholarship, all these claims are regarded as being part of a dubious conspiracy theory. French authors like Franck Marie (1978), Jean-Luc Chaumeil (1979, 1984, 1992) and Pierre Jarnac (1985, 1988) have never taken Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion as seriously as Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. They eventually concluded that it was all a hoax, outlining in detail the reasons for their verdict, and giving detailed evidence that the Holy Blood authors had not reported comprehensively. They imply that this evidence had been ignored by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh in order to bolster the mythic version of the Priory's history.
In 1989, Pierre Plantard tried but failed to salvage his reputation and agenda by claiming that the Priory of Sion had actually been founded in 1681 at Rennes-le-Château.
[edit]
The Pelat Affair
In September 1993, Plantard approached of his own volition an investigative judge, Thierry Jean-Pierre who, at the time, was investigating the activities of multi-millionaire Roger-Patrice Pelat. Plantard communicated to the judge that the man he was investigating had once been grandmaster of the Priory of Sion. Indeed, Pelat's name had been on Plantard's list of grandmasters since 1989. In fact, Pelat had died in 1989, while he was being indicted for insider trading - or délit d'initié in French. Plantard was not only naive about French law but also of financial terms and he interpreted the word "initié" esoterically, to mean "initiate". Following a long established pattern, Plantard "recruited" the "initiate" Pelat soon after his death and included him as the most recent Priory of Sion grandmaster.
But in 1993, Plantard failed once more to realise the severity of interfering with the law; he had made his most important mistake and it led to his eventual isolation. Pelat had been a friend of François Mitterrand, then President of France, and at the centre of a scandal involving French Prime Minister Pierre Bérégovoy. As an investigative judge, Thierry Jean-Pierre could not dismiss any information pertaining to his case that was brought to his attention, but since he never considered it worthwhile meeting Plantard, he ordered the search of Plantard's home by his officers.
This turned up what has been described as a fantasy-land of harmless, forged documents, including some proclaiming Plantard the true king of France. Under oath, Plantard had to admit that he had fabricated everything, including Pelat's involvement with the Priory of Sion.[4] Plantard was ordered to cease and desist all activities related to the promotion of the Priory of Sion and lived in obscurity until his death on 3 February 2000, in Paris.
[edit]
The alleged “Relaunch” of the Priory
On 27 December 2002, a letter was released on "official" Priory stationery announcing a public relaunch of the fraternity. It was signed by someone claiming to be Plantard's former private secretary, Gino Sandri under the title of General Secretary, and an unnamed woman as "President" («Nautonnier»).
[edit]
The Da Vinci Code
Enlarge
For more details on this topic, see The Priory of Sion in the Da Vinci Code.
Recently, as a result of Dan Brown's best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code and the movie made from it, there has been a new level of public interest in the Priory of Sion. Brown's novel promotes the mythical version of the Priory: it was founded in 1099, Leonardo da Vinci was among its Grand Masters, etc. The author has presented this as fact in a non-fiction preface, public appearances, and interviews.
[edit]
The Sion Revelation
Further conspiracies are alleged in The Sion Revelation: The Truth About the Guardians of Christ's Sacred Bloodline (2006) by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (authors of 1997 book The Templar Revelation, the principal source for Dan Brown's claims about hidden messages in the work of Leonardo da Vinci). They accept the evidence that the Priory was created by Plantard, and that its pre-1956 history is fraudulent, but they insist that this was a part of a complex double-bluff designed to discredit the story of the "divine bloodline" and the secret organisations that support it. They argue that these plotters are attempting to create a United States of Europe.
[edit]
Et in Arcadia ego...
For more details on this topic, see Et in Arcadia ego.
Image:Poussinorig.jpg
Poussin's Arcadian Shepherds
Et in Arcadia ego... is supposedly the official motto of both the Plantard family and the Priory of Sion, according to a claim that first appeared in 1964. Et in Arcadia ego is a Latin phrase, that most famously appears as a tomb inscription on the ca. 1640 classical painting, The Arcadian Shepherds, by French painter Nicolas Poussin. It literally means, "I [am] also in Arcadia". It has been suggested that the cryptic phrase could be an anagram for "I Tego Arcana Dei" which translated into English means "Go! I Conceal the Secret of God".
However, the addition of the ellipsis (which was not there in the Poussin painting), suggests a missing word. Sum has been proposed as the completion of the phrase, which could then read "And in Arcadia, I am." Richard Andrews and Paul Schellenberger in their book The Tomb of God have theorized that the extrapolated phrase Et in Arcadia ego sum could be an anagram for Arcam Dei Tango Iesu, which would mean "I touch the tomb of God – Jesus". Their argument assumes that:
* a) the Latin phrase is incomplete
* b) the extrapolation as to the missing words is correct
* c) the sentence, once completed, is intended to be an anagram
* d) Andrews and Schellenberger selected the proper anagram out of the thousands of possibilities.
Poussin's earlier version of the "Arcadian Shepherds", depicting a different tomb with the same inscription
Enlarge
Poussin's earlier version of the "Arcadian Shepherds", depicting a different tomb with the same inscription
They then concluded that the tomb contains the ossuary of the historical Jesus. Andrews and Schellenberger also claim that the tomb portrayed is one at Les Pontils, near Rennes le Chateau[5]. Regardless of the veracity of this first claim, it is not considered part of the official history of the painting by Poussin that contains the phrase, which is well-documented. Furthermore, the phrase was not created by Poussin, but was first used in a painting by Guercino, which Poussin had already imitated in an earlier work, portraying an entirely different tomb, before he created the more famous Louvre painting.
The claim that Poussin could have depicted the Les Pontils tomb was severely discredited in the 1996 BBC2 Timewatch documentary "The History of a Mystery" – which also showed film footage of the two authors unable to correctly answer basic questions about the Priory of Sion. Other research published by Franck Marie in 1974 and Michel Vallet (Pierre Jarnac) in 1985 had already shown that the tomb was created in 1903 by the owner of the land, Jean Galibert, as a simple grave in which he buried his wife and grandmother. The stone sephulcre was built in the 1930s, and was demolished in 1988 by its then-owner, with the full permission of the local government authority, because the land around it was being repeatedly trespassed upon and damaged by Priory "researchers" and treasure hunters.[6]
[edit]
Cultural influences
The Priory of Sion has had several influences on popular culture, not all of them entirely accurate or serious:
* The Priory was the template for the Grail order in the Preacher comic book series and, more loosely, the Millennium Group in the Millennium television series.
* The Priory also makes an appearance in the third installment of the popular Gabriel Knight adventure game series by author Jane Jensen, Gabriel Knight III: "Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned".
* The band Priory of Brion formed by Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant in 1999 is an amalgamation of the name "Priory of Sion" and "Life of Brian" (after the Monty Python film).
* The novel Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, which weaves many historical conspiracy elements together into one story, begins with the discovery of an antique encrypted French document, similar to the ones featured in the Priory hoax.
[edit]
Alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion
The Priory of Sion was supposedly led by a Grand Master or Nautonnier. The following list of Grand Masters is derived from the Secret Dossiers of Henri Lobineau compiled by Pierre Plantard under the pseudonym of "Philippe Toscan du Plantier" in 1967:
Leonardo da Vinci, alleged to be the Priory of Sion's 12th Grand Master
Enlarge
Leonardo da Vinci, alleged to be the Priory of Sion's 12th Grand Master
All the Grand Master names were selected after the people in question had died. Many of the names chosen seem to have a common thread of being known for an interest in alchemy or heresy.
1. Jean de Gisors (1188-1220)
2. Marie de Saint-Clair (1220-1266)
3. Guillaume de Gisors (1266-1307)
4. Edouard de Bar (1307-1336)
5. Jeanne de Bar (1336-1351)
6. Jean de Saint-Clair (1351-1366)
7. Blanche d'Evreux (1366-1398)
8. Nicolas Flamel (1398-1418)
9. Rene d'Anjou (1418-1480)
10. Yolanda de Bar (1480-1483)
11. Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi a.k.a. Sandro Botticelli (1483-1510)
12. Léonard de Vinci (1510-1519)
13. Connetable de Bourbon (Charles, Duke of Bourbon) (1519-1527)
14. Ferdinand de Gonzague (1527-1575)
15. Louis de Nevers (1575-1595)
16. Robert Fludd (1595-1637)
17. Johann Valentin Andrea (1637-1654)
18. Robert Boyle (1654-1691)
19. Isaac Newton (1691-1727)
20. Charles Radclyffe (1727-1746)
21. Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine (1746-1780)
22. Archduke Maximilian Franz of Austria (1780-1801)
23. Charles Nodier (1801-1844)
24. Victor Hugo (1844-1885)
25. Claude Debussy (1885-1918)
26. Jean Cocteau (1918-1963)
A later document, Le Cercle d'Ulysse, identifies Francois Ducaud-Bourget, a prominent Traditionalist Catholic, as the Grand Master following Cocteau's death. Plantard himself is later identified as Grand Master.
When the Secret Dossiers were exposed as a forgery by French researchers and authors, Plantard kept quiet but had to acknowledge that the above list was a fraud when investigated by the police for giving false evidence (see above). In 1989, he tried to make a comeback and revive the Priory of Sion by publishing a second list of Priory Grand Masters. This second list, which included the names of the deceased Roger Patrice Pelat and his own young son Thomas Plantard, should not be confused with the first. Post-1989, Plantard sought to distance himself from the first list, which belonged to an older, discredited version of the Priory.
Victor Hugo, alleged to be the Priory of Sion's 24th Grand Master
Enlarge
Victor Hugo, alleged to be the Priory of Sion's 24th Grand Master
The second List of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion appeared in Vaincre No. 3, September 1989, page 22.
1. Jean-Tim Negri d'Albes (1681-1703)
2. François d'Hautpoul (1703-1726)
3. André Hercule de Rosset (1726-1766)
4. Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine (1766-1780)
5. Archduke Maximilian Franz of Austria (1780-1801)
6. Charles Nodier (1801-1844)
7. Victor Hugo (1844-1885)
8. Claude Debussy (1885-1918)
9. Jean Cocteau (1918-1963)
10. François Balphangon (1963-1969)
11. John Drick (1969-1981)
12. Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair (1981)
13. Philippe de Chérisey (1984-1985)
14. Patrice Pelat (1985-1989)
15. Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair (1989)
16. Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair (1989)
[edit]
Notes
1. ^ Rennes-le-Château: Alternative Religions Resource Guides
2. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1552009_page2.shtml Transcription of 60 minutes program
3. ^ The Merovingian Dynasty: Satanic bloodline of the Antichrist and False Prophet
4. ^ Priory-of-Sion,com - Discussion of the Pelat affair
5. ^ Images of the Les Pontile tomb
6. ^ History of the Galibert tomb
[edit]
References
* Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln (1982). Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Corgi. ISBN 0-552-12138-X.
* Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln (1987). The Messianic Legacy. Dell. ISBN 0-440-20319-8 (1989 reissue). The sequel to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
* Richard Andrews and Paul Schellenberger (1996). The Tomb of God: The Body of Jesus and the Solution to a 2,000-year-old Mystery. Little Brown. ISBN 0-316-87997-5.
* Paul Smith. Priory-of-Sion.com
* Da Vinci Declassified, 2006 TLC video documentary
[edit]
External links
* Priory-of-Sion.com
* BBC NEWS. (2004) Code points away from Holy Grail
* Emick, Jennifer. About - Alternative Religions - Priory of Sion (R+C): Alternative Religions Resource Guides
* Johan (2006) Chaumeil - Plantard. (Gazette of Rennes-le-Château)
* Polidoro, Massimo. (2004) The Secrets of Rennes-le-Château: Notes on a Strange World.
* Pourtal, Jean-Patrick. (2005) Priory of Sion.
* Introvigne, Massimo. Beyond "The Da Vinci Code": What is the Priory of Sion?
* Mader, Eric. Declaration from the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion (satire)
* MalGo Media Services Ltd. The Priory of Sion Hoax
* McDonald, James. The Priory of Sion
* McDonald, James. Books on the Priory of Sion
* Miller, Laura. (2004) The Last Word: The Da Vinci Con
* Mizrach, Steven. Priory of Sion: the Facts, the Theories, the Mystery
* Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (Knights Templar). Prieure de Sion & The Treasures of Rennes-le-Château
* Sandri, Gino. (2003) Rennes-Le-Chateau Gazette interview of Jean-Luc Chaumeil
* Willker, Wieland. (2005) Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code: A textcritical look at the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax
Memorials
The people of Guernsey erected a statue in Candie Gardens to commemorate his stay in the islands.
The City of Paris have preserved his residences Hauteville House, Guernsey and 6, Place des Vosges, Paris as museums.
Hugo is venerated as a saint in the Vietnamese religion of Cao Dai.
Victor Hugo's name was used by the Priory of Sion, a fraudulent society created in 1956 in France, to try and confirm the group's existence. Forged documents were hidden in the French National Library that supposedly listed Grand Masters going back a thousand years, with Hugo's name on the list, along with other historical figures such as Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton. The existence of the Priory of Sion remains a mystery today, as well as whether Victor Hugo was indeed involved in such an organization or not.
[edit]
Works
Zion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Zion (disambiguation).
Dormition Church, situated on the modern "Mount Zion"
Enlarge
Dormition Church, situated on the modern "Mount Zion"
Zion (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן, tziyyon; Tiberian vocalization: tsiyyôn; transliterated Zion or Sion) is a term that most often designates the land of Israel and its capital Jerusalem. The word is found in texts dating back almost three millennia. It originally referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David.
"Zion" came to be applied to the section of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became synonymous with Jerusalem. "Zion" is also a metonym for Solomon's Temple. Today, "Zion" is often used metaphorically, to symbolize Jerusalem and the Promised Land to come, in which God dwells among his chosen people.
Mount Zion is also the modern name of a hill south of the Old City's Armenian Quarter — the result of a misnomer dating from the Middle Ages when pilgrims mistook the relatively large, flat summit for the original site of the City of David. The Dormition Church (right) is located upon that hill.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Modern use
o 1.1 Zionism
o 1.2 Anti-slavery
o 1.3 Latter-day Saint usage of the term Zion
o 1.4 Rastafari Movement
* 2 Ugaritic Texts and the Bible
* 3 The Daughter of Zion
* 4 References
* 5 External links
[edit]
Modern use
[edit]
Zionism
Main article: Zionism
Zionism is a national liberation movement[1], a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed Jewish society in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
[edit]
Anti-slavery
The Jewish longing for Zion, starting with the deportation and enslavement of Jews during the Babylonian captivity, was adopted as a metaphor by Christianized Black slaves. Thus, Zion symbolizes a longing by wandering peoples for a safe homeland. This could be a literal place such as in Ethiopia for Rastafarians for example. For others, it has taken on a more spiritual meaning—a safe spiritual homeland, like in heaven, or a kind of peace of mind in one's present life.
[edit]
Latter-day Saint usage of the term Zion
Main article: Zion (Mormonism)
Zion is a term with broad significance in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In addition to its Biblical meaning referring to Jerusalem, Mormons see Zion more broadly as any city in which the people are unified and are "pure in heart," with no contention and no poor among them based on living the Law of Consecration. In specific scriptural references, the term refers to the central physical location or city to which Latter-day Saints have historically gathered, which has included Kirtland, Ohio; Independence, Missouri; and Nauvoo, Illinois. In a more metaphorical sense, Zion represents a unified society of Latter-day Saints, unified as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with others willing to live the law of consecration. Under this interpretation one can strive to make even one's own home "Zion". Zion also refers to what Latter-day Saints generally believe will be the New Jerusalem, a physical, Millennial city expected to be headquartered in Jackson County, Missouri.
[edit]
Rastafari Movement
For Rastafarians, Zion is to be found in Africa, and more specifically in Ethiopia, where the term is also in use. Some Rastas believe themselves to represent the Children of Israel in modern times, and their goal is to repatriate to Africa, or to Zion. Rasta reggae music is peppered with references to Zion; among the best-known examples are the Bob Marley songs '"Zion Train" and "Iron Lion Zion." In recent years, such references have also "crossed over" into pop music thanks to artists like Matisyahu, Sublime, Lauryn Hill, Boney M (Rivers of Babylon), Dreadzone with the reggae-tinged track "Zion Youth" and Damian Marley, who released his track "Road to Zion" featuring Nas in 2005, and Tool songwriter Maynard James Keenan mentions Zion in "Wings For Marie".
[edit]
Ugaritic Texts and the Bible
In texts uncovered at Ugarit, references to "Zephon" (Tsephon) have been identified with the Syrian mountain Jebel Aqra. In these texts, the mountain is the holy place of the gods, where the god known as the "Lord" reigns over the divine assembly. The word "Zephon" is a common Semitic word for "North", and some have considered it to be possibly cognate with the Hebrew name Zion (Tsiyyon). Psalm 48:2 mentions both terms together: "...Har-Tsiyyon yarktey Tsafon..." ("Mount Zion on the Northern side"), usually taken to refer to the north side of Mount Zion, not necessarily indicating that Zion is found to the North.
[edit]
The Daughter of Zion
A recruitment poster published in American Jewish magazines. Daughter of Zion (representing the Jewish people): I want your Old New Land! Join the Jewish regiment.
Enlarge
A recruitment poster published in American Jewish magazines. Daughter of Zion (representing the Jewish people): I want your Old New Land! Join the Jewish regiment.
The location of the Temple was neither a mountain nor a city, nor even the highest elevation near the city, but rather a smallish hill, and this hill is sometimes considered to be what is meant by the phrase "Daughter of Zion" - as though the Temple Mount is the "daughter" of Mount Zion. Another cryptic verse, Zechariah 4:7, seems to refer to this hill, but is also ambiguous, depending on the punctuation. In Hebrew it reads "Mi attah Har-haGadol lifnei Zerubbabel l'mishor..."; the plain text has no punctuation, but the Masoretic text puts a pause following Har-haGadol, to mean "What are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel, [you will become just] a plain..." However, if the pause is placed following Zerubbabel, it would mean instead "What are you, "great mountain" before Zerubbabel? [You are just] a plain..." Since this hill is where Zerubbabel built the Second Temple, it appears to be a reference to the "Daughter of Zion" (the hill), as distinct from Zion (the mountain).
[edit]
References
1. ^ Zionism: The National Liberation Movement of The Jewish People (WZO)
[edit]
External links
* Guide to the Mormon Scriptures: Zion
* Bible Dictionary: Zion
Philippe de Chérisey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Philippe de Cherisey)
Jump to: navigation, search
Philippe de Chérisey (February 13, 1923 – July 17, 1985) was a French writer, radio humorist, and actor (under the name of Amédée). He is best known for his involvement in the creation of fake documents concerning the "history" of the Priory of Sion.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Biography
* 2 Details of the forgeries
* 3 Relationship with Plantard
* 4 References
* 5 External links
[edit]
Biography
Coming from a wealthy family in the Lorraine, Chérisey decided to become an actor against the family's wishes. He enrolled in the Simon school in 1946 where he started his actor's training, and his most notable film appearance was in Jeux interdits in 1952. He was known as a bon viveur and enjoyed wine on a regular basis. He also regularly frequented public libraries where his natural curiosity made him follow up anything that took his fancy.
He is most well-known for being the #2 man in the Priory of Sion hoax, with his most important contribution probably being the forging of a set of medieval documents for his friend Pierre Plantard. The documents "verified" Plantard's alleged descent from the Frankish king Dagobert II, as well as attempting to verify the existence of an alleged 1000-year-old secret society, the Priory of Sion. Some of these documents were planted in the French National Library, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris during the 1960s. Others were reproduced in the 1967 book Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau by a third associate, Gerard de Sede. The book claimed to be about an alleged hidden treasure found by a 19th century priest in southern France. The two sets of documents were later used as source material for the 1982 pseudohistory book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which was itself used as a primary source for the 2003 bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, which incorrectly stated that the Priory of Sion was a factual society.
Chérisey was a follower of the surrealist movement and a member of the College of Pataphysics, with a desire to subvert the norms of culture, or in other words, create an alternate reality that became more real than reality itself. He was also a joker, with the best example of this being his esoteric novella "Circuit" (1968) which also includes satirical overtones. He was also prone, like his friend Plantard, to adopt the persona of recently deceased persons. In 1976 he penned an attack against the historian Descadeillas who had written a book refuting the fantasies pertaining to the Priory of Sion and Plantard. Chérisey wrote a pamphlet, Le Cercle d’Ulysse (a word play for ‘Le Cercle du Lys’), and signed the piece under an 'adopted' name, Jean Delaude - a journalist from the Carcassnne area who had recently died and who, in his lifetime, was a friend of Descadeillas. Cherisey distributed the pamphlet by claiming to have received it anonymously. But in it, he also attacked author de Sede who had just published Rose+Croix. The text alleged that Sauniere had indeed found those famous parchments and the genealogical documents; it also promoted the fraudulent Priory of Sion [re: Jarnac 2002, 25 and Marlin 2004, 24].
Philippe de Chérisey died in Belgium in 1985, while working to finish an encyclopedia of trema. His funeral was held at the Church of the Holy Trinity in Paris and he was buried in the family plot in Roeux (Pas-de-Calais).
[edit]
Details of the forgeries
The text of one "parchment" (parchment 1) was copied from Codex Bezae, an Old Latin/Greek diglot from the 5th century CE contained in the book by Fulcran Grégoire Vigouroux, "Dictionnaire De La Bible" (Letouzey et Ané, Éditeurs, Tome Premier; 1895). Chérisey chose to copy material from Vigouroux because he was a priest connected with the Church of St Sulpice, a location that had been exploited as part of the Priory of Sion myths as created by Plantard and Chérisey, so Chérisey's utilisation of this priest fitted in nicely into these myths. And according to an investigation into the Priory of Sion hoax by the American news program 60 Minutes, one of the documents was from an 1897 version of the Latin Vulgate, and the original forgery is now in the possession of Jean-Luc Chaumeil, a French writer, who states that he had their age analyzed, and it was confirmed that they were merely decades old, not centuries. Chaumeil also has letters from Cherisey, which contain proof that Cherisey was knowingly engaging in a fraud.
Chérisey was fluent in French and English and is reported as having a rounded but limited knowledge of Latin (which he had learnt at school), this being demonstrated in his copying of the Latin Text from the Codex Bezae for his "parchments" : for instance, he made several of the most basic errors in copying the Latin uncials, which therefore garbles the spelling of multiple words. This information is frequently omitted by those who promote the "parchments" as authentic.
Chérisey, who had a fondness for puzzles, is also the one who came up with the embedded codes in the forged documents, which appeared to refer to the "Sion" society. One of the encrypted messages hid a message in modern French, within supposedly medieval Latin text. The decrypted message said, "A Dagobert II Roi et a Sion est ce tresor, et il est la mort." (trans: To King Dagobert II and to Sion does this treasure belong, and he is there dead).
[edit]
Relationship with Plantard
According to Henry Lincoln, one of the co-authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail, Plantard admitted to him in person that the various documents had been forged, and identified Chérisey as their creator. Chérisey, who was in the room at the time, simply "smiled and changed the subject."
A schism also developed between Plantard and Chérisey during the mid-1980s, when Chérisey began collaborating with Paul Rouelle on a new project which would have incorporated the Priory concepts. Plantard objected vehemently to this, possibly since this would have detracted from the Priory's credibility. The two fell out in 1983 after a specific event, when Plantard claimed to be holding a meeting to decide on the new Priory of Sion Grand Master, but did not invite de Cherisey. In fact such a meeting never took place, but Plantard published a press release that the Master had been elected, and de Cherisey could not overcome the insult. Plantard and Chérisey never worked together again.
[edit]
References
* Information about his humorist career
* Da Vinci Declassified, 2006 TLC video documentary
* actor profile at the Internet Movie Database
* Jeux interdits, de Cherisey's most notable film
* "The Priory of Sion", April 30, 2006 segment on 60 Minutes, produced by Jeanne Langley, hosted by Ed Bradley
[edit]
External links
Category:Priory of Sion hoax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This category collects together articles related to the alleged French occult group Priory of Sion created as a political hoax by Pierre Plantard. Aspects of these stories and legends were incorporated into Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code.
Subcategories
Pierre Plantard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Pierre Athanase Marie Plantard (March 18, 1920 – February 3, 2000) was a French draughtsman, best known for being the principal perpetrator of the hoax of the Priory of Sion, which he established to manufacture evidence that he had a legitimate claim to the French throne. This deception later inspired a series of BBC Two documentaries, the 1982 pseudohistory book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code, among others.
He used an altered surname, Plantard de Saint-Clair, from 1975 onwards. The surname Saint-Clair was added to his own surname on the basis that this was the family name associated with the area of Gisors, a part of France associated with his hoax.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Early life
* 2 1956 version of the Priory
* 3 Development of the Priory story
* 4 Later life
* 5 External links and references
[edit]
Early life
Plantard was born in 1920 in Paris, the son of a manservant. Starting in 1937, he began forming phantom associations with the aim of "purifying and renewing France," showing his anti-semitic and anti-Masonic inclinations. On December 16, 1940 Plantard wrote a letter to Marshal Pétain expressing his belief in a "terrible ‘Masonic and Jewish’ conspiracy" against France and warned that Pétain should act quickly to counter this threat—with Plantard offering "a hundred reliable men … who are devoted to the cause."
Plantard's phantom associations included the French Union (1937), the French National Renewal (1941) and the Alpha Galates (1942 and 1946). Plantard's group published a periodical called Vaincre (Defeat), which was frequently laced with anti-semitic, anti-Masonic, and mystical nationalist views. The German authorities had refused permission for Plantard to form the French National Renewal, and when Plantard disregarded another prohibition in the case of the Alpha Galates, he was given a four-month sentence in Fresnes Prison. Police Reports (entitled File Ga P7) relating to Plantard's pre-war and wartime activities are contained in the Paris Prefecture of Police, and from this early stage on in Plantard's life it was observed about him that: "Plantard, who boasts of having links with numerous politicians, seems to be one of those dotty, pretentious young men who run more or less fictitious groups in an effort to look important and who are taking advantage of the present trend towards taking a greater interest in young people in order to attract the Government's attention" (Police Report on Plantard's French National Renewal dated 9 May 1941). A Secret Service investigation of him during World War II concluded that his mind was "cloudy", and that he was a fantasist who enjoyed creating right-wing anti-semitic organizations, that were setup like medieval orders of chivalry.
In 1953, Plantard was charged and convicted, and served a six-month sentence for fraud.
[edit]
1956 version of the Priory
For more details on this topic, see Priory of Sion.
In 1956, Pierre Plantard was working as a draughtsman for a company in the town of Annemasse in south-east France, near the border with Switzerland. It was there that he founded the Priory with Andre Bonhomme, both of them being signatories to the 7 May 1956 Priory of Sion Statutes and Registration Documents that had to be deposited at the sub-prefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois. This action was required by the 1901 French Law of Associations, which stated that all French associations, groups and clubs must register with the authorities. It is believed that Plantard chose the name of the Priory of Sion after a local area of the same name, "Sion-les-Mines", or perhaps simply a local mountain, "Mont-Sion". Devoted to the "defence and liberty of low-cost housing," the Priory association attacked the property developers of Annemasse through its journal Circuit.
[edit]
Development of the Priory story
During the early 1960s, Plantard put himself forward as a Merovingian claimant to the throne of France, descended from King Dagobert II. This position was apparently influenced by an article that he had read by Louis Saurel in the French magazine Les Cahiers de l'Histoire Number 1 (1960). Louis Saurel's article had argued that Dagobert II was the last effective independent Merovingian King before the "Mayors of the Palace" began taking control. There is no prior evidence that Plantard or his family claimed descent from the Merovingian dynasty, and the format of Louis Saurel's 1960 article in Les Cahiers de l'Histoire was later copied in a 1964 Priory Document ascribed to "Anne Lea Hisler" entitled "Rois et Gouvernants de la France". Plantard in reality was the son of a butler and a cook, who had no recorded links to the Merovingians.
This period of Plantard's activities coincided with his meeting French author Gérard de Sède, who with the collaboration of Plantard published in 1962 the book Les Templiers sont parmi nous, which related to the Gisors story that was begun by Roger Lhomoy (Lhomoy was de Sède's pig-farmer during this time). The book seems to have been the genesis of what was soon to become the popular version of the Priory of Sion, with the well-known ingredients – Godfrey of Bouillon, the Knights Templar, and so on. All of this can be easily proved to be historical fiction because the various claims as found in the Priory Documents never existed before the early 1960s in any shape or form, and cannot be substantiated from the known historical records.
Le Tresor Maudit, 1967
Enlarge
Le Tresor Maudit, 1967
Furthermore, letters in existence dating from the 1960s written by Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Cherisey and Gérard de Sède to each other confirm that the three were engaging in an out-and-out confidence trick. The letters describe schemes on how to combat criticisms of their various allegations, and how they would make up new allegations to try and keep the whole thing going. These letters (totalling over 100) are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has also retained the original envelopes, and the originals of the forged medieval documents that were reproduced in the book Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau, a collaboration of Plantard and Gerard de Sede. Jean-Luc Chaumeil during the 1970s was part of the Priory of Sion cabal and wrote books and articles about Plantard and the Priory of Sion before splitting from it during the late 1970s and exposing Pierre Plantard's past in French books. The Priory, Plantard claimed during the mid-1960s (but not before, and certainly not in 1956), was a secret inner circle of the Templars: It had survived the extinction of the original order, and had been manipulating events in Europe over centuries to keep alive the "rightful" Merovingian royalty.
Influenced by the hotelier Noel Corbu who claimed in 1956 that a treasure had been previously discovered in the area by the 19th century occupant of his property, Father Bérenger Saunière, Plantard further embellished the story by claiming that this treasure included parchments that substantiated Plantard's descent from Dagobert. Plantard began writing manuscripts, and produced forged medieval "parchments" (created by his friend, Philippe de Chérisey) with the claim that Saunière had supposedly discovered these documents whilst renovating his church in 1891. These documents purportedly showed the survival of the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. Plantard manipulated the story of Saunière's activities at Rennes-le-Château in order to "prove" his claims relating to the Priory of Sion. In 1966, he also planted arcane home-made documents in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. These documents, the so-called Dossiers Secrets (Secret Files), purported to corroborate the Priory's version of history. They were a remarkable collection of genealogies going back over a thousand years, all painstakingly created by hand over a period of months, with nothing more than a cheap stencil kit to produce the family trees and crests.
[edit]
Later life
In 1979, Plantard met with Henry Lincoln and others, and claimed that he was the current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.
In 1982, authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln published Holy Blood Holy Grail. It became a bestseller, and publicized Plantard's Priory of Sion as a "real" organization. The book also expanded upon the story though, claiming that the Merovingian line of kings had actually been descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and the purpose of the Priory (and its military arm, the Knights Templar) was to protect the secret of the holy bloodline.
Plantard was reportedly horrified by this embellishment, saying that it was sacrilegious. He rejected the claims during the late 1980s when he revised the mythological pedigree of the Priory of Sion, claiming it had nothing to do with the Knights Templar, that the "Dossiers Secrets" were written under the influence of LSD, and that the Priory of Sion had in fact been founded in 1681 at Rennes-le-Château by the grandfather of Marie de Negri d'Ables. This revised version of the Priory of Sion had been influenced by the opening of the "Sauniere Museum" in Rennes-le-Chateau in May 1989.
In September 1993, Plantard claimed that Roger-Patrice Pelat had once been grandmaster of the Priory of Sion. Pelat was a friend of the then-President of France François Mitterrand and center of a scandal involving French Prime Minister Pierre Bérégovoy. A French court ordered a search of Plantard's home, turning up many documents, including some proclaiming Plantard the true king of France. Under oath, Plantard admitted that he had fabricated everything, including Pelat's involvement with the Priory of Sion.[1] Plantard lived in obscurity until his death on 3 February 2000 in Paris.
He thus did not live to see the publication of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code in 2003, an international best-seller drawing heavily on the Priory mythology originally invented by Plantard (and elaborated by various conspiracy theorists). The novel itself can be said to carry on the hoax, since Brown in a preface asserts that the Priory of Sion is an actual secret society that really was founded centuries ago (see The Priory of Sion in the Da Vinci Code). By a strange twist of fate, Dan Brown would derive enormous amounts of money from the Priory myth, something Pierre Plantard himself never achieved during decades of deception.
[edit]
External links and references
* Second part of the interview of Jean-Luc Chaumeil where he mentions his discovery of the bewitched hill and the owner of the abbé's estate, Henri Buthion, as well as his tumultuous relations with Pierre Plantard (Priory of Sion)!
* Paul Smith. Priory of Sion: The Pierre Plantard Archives 1937–1993 The most extensive resource for an exposure of Pierre Plantard as a hoaxer.
* Massimo Introvigne. Beyond The Da Vinci Code: History and Myth of the Priory of Sion
· "Priory of Sion", April 30, 2006 segment on 60 Minutes, produced by Jeanne Langley and narrated by Ed Bradley
Merovingian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Merovingian Dynasty
Kings of All the Franks
Kings of Neustria
Kings of Austrasia
Pharamond 410-426
Clodio 426-447
Merowig 447-458
Childeric I 458-481
Clovis I 481 - 511
Childebert I 511-558
Clotaire I 511-561
Chlodomer 511-524
Theuderic I 511-534
Theudebert I 534-548
Theudebald 548-555
Clotaire I 558-561
Charibert I 561-567
Chilperic I 561-584
Clotaire II 584-629
Guntram 561-592
Childebert II 592-595
Theuderic II 595-613
Sigebert II 613
Sigebert I 561-575
Childebert II 575-595
Theudebert II 595-612
Theuderic II 612-613
Sigebert II 613
Clotaire II 613-629
Dagobert I 623-629
Dagobert I 629-639
Charibert II 629-632
Chilperic 632
Clovis II 639-658
Clotaire III 658-673
Theuderic III 673
Childeric II 673-675
Theuderic III 675-691
Sigebert III 634-656
Childebert the Adopted 656-661
Clotaire III 661-662
Childeric II 662-675
Clovis III 675-676
Dagobert II 676-679
Theuderic III 679-691
Clovis IV 691-695
Childebert III 695-711
Dagobert III 711-715
Chilperic II 715-720
Clotaire IV 717-720
Theuderic IV 721-737
Childeric III 743-751
For other uses, see Merovingian (disambiguation).
The Merovingians were a dynasty of Frankish kings who ruled a frequently fluctuating area in parts of present-day France and Germany from the fifth to the eighth century. They were sometimes referred to as the "long-haired kings" (Latin reges criniti) by contemporaries, for their symbolically unshorn hair (traditionally the tribal leader of the Franks wore his hair long, while the warriors trimmed it short). The term is drawn directly from Germanic, akin to their dynasty's Old English name Merewīowing.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Origins
* 2 Character
* 3 History
* 4 Historiography and sources
* 5 Numismatics
* 6 Merovingians in popular culture
* 7 References
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
[edit]
Origins
The Merovingian dynasty owes its name to Merovech or Merowig (sometimes Latinised as Meroveus or Merovius), leader of the Salian Franks from c.447 to 457, and emerges into wider history with the victories of his son Childeric I (reigned c.457 – 481) against the Visigoths, Saxons, and Alemanni. Childeric's son Clovis I went on to unite most of Gaul north of the Loire under his control around 486, when he defeated Syagrius, the Roman ruler in those parts. He won the Battle of Tolbiac against the Alemanni in 496, on which occasion he adopted his wife's Nicene Christian faith, and decisively defeated the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse in the Battle of Vouillé in 507. After Clovis' death, his kingdom was partitioned among his four sons, according to Frankish custom. Over the next century, this tradition of partition would continue. Even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom — not unlike the late Roman Empire — was conceived of as a single entity ruled collectively by several kings (in their own realms) and the turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole kingdom under a single king. Leadership among the early Merovingians was based on mythical descent and alleged divine patronage, expressed in terms of continued military success.
[edit]
Character
The Merovingian king was the master of the spoils of war, both movable and in lands and their folk, and he was in charge of the redistribution of conquered wealth among the first of his followers. "When he died his property was divided equally among his heirs as though it were private property: the kingdom was a form of patrimony" (Rouche 1987 p 420). The kings appointed magnates to be comites, charging them with defence, administration, and the judgement of disputes. This happened against the backdrop of a newly isolated Europe without its Roman systems of taxation and bureaucracy, the Franks having taken over administration as they gradually penetrated into the thoroughly Romanised west and south of Gaul. The counts had to provide armies, enlisting their milites and endowing them with land in return. These armies were subject to the king's call for military support. There were annual national assemblies of the nobles of the realm and their armed retainers which decides major policies of warmaking. The army also acclaimed new kings by raising them on its shields in a continuance of ancient practice which made the king the leader of the warrior-band, not a head of state. Furthermore, the king was expected to support himself with the products of his private domain (royal demesne), which was called the fisc. Some scholars have attributed this to the Merovingians lacking a sense of res publica, but other historians have criticized this view as an oversimplification. This system developed in time into feudalism, and expectations of royal self-sufficiency lasted until the Hundred Years' War.
Trade declined with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and agricultural estates were mostly self-sufficient. The remaining international trade was dominated by Middle Eastern merchants.
Merovingian law was not universal law based on rational equity, generally applicable to all, as Roman law; it was applied to each man according to his origin: Ripuarian Franks were subject to their own Lex Ribuaria, codified at a late date (Beyerle and Buchner 1954), while the so-called Lex Salica (Salic Law) of the Salian clans, first tentatively codified in 511 (Rouche 1987 p 423) was invoked under medieval exigencies as late as the Valois era. In this the Franks lagged behind the Burgundians and the Visigoths, that they had no universal Roman-based law. In Merovingian times, law remained in the rote memorisation of rachimburgs, who memorised all the precedents on which it was based, for Merovingian law did not admit of the concept of creating new law, only of maintaining tradition. Nor did its Germanic traditions offer any code of civil law required of urbanised society, such as Justinian caused to be assembled and promulgated in the Byzantine Empire. The few surviving Merovingian edicts are almost entirely concerned with settling divisions of estates among heirs.
[edit]
History
The Merovingian kingdom, which included, from at latest 509, all the Franks and all of Gaul but Burgundy, from its first division in 511 was in an almost constant state of war, usually civil. The sons of Clovis maintained their fraternal bonds in wars with the Burgundians, but showed that dangerous vice of personal aggrandisement when their brothers died. Heirs were seized and executed and kingdoms annexed. Eventually, fresh from his latest familial homicide, Clotaire I reunited, in 558, the entire Frankish realm under one ruler. He survived only three years and in turn his realm was divided into quarters for his four living sons.
The second division of the realm was not marked by the confraternal ventures of the first, for the eldest son was debauched and short-lived and the youngest an exemplar of all that was not admirable in the dynasty. Civil wars between the Neustrian and Austrasian factions which were developing did not cease until all the realms had fallen into Clotaire II's hands. Thus reunited, the kingdom was necessarily weaker. The nobles had made great gains and procured enormous concessions from the kings who were purchasing their support. Though the dynasty would continue for over a century and though it would produce strong, effective scions in the future, its first century, which established the Frankish state as the most stable and important in Western Europe, also dilapidated it beyond recovery. Its effective rule notably diminished, the increasingly token presence of the kings was required to legitimise any action by the mayors of the palaces who had risen during the final decades of war to a prominence which would become regal in the next century. During the remainder of the seventh century, the kings ceased to wield effective political power and became more and more symbolic figures; they began to allot more and more day-to-day administration to that powerful official in their household, the mayor.
After the reign of the powerful Dagobert I (died 639), who had spent much of his career invading foreign lands, such as Spain and the pagan Slavic territories to the east, the kings are known as rois fainéants ("do-nothing kings"). Though, in truth, no kings but the last two did nothing, their own will counted for little in the decision-making process. The dynasty had sapped itself of its vital energy and the kings mounted the throne at a young age and died in the prime of life, while the mayors warred with one another for the supremacy of their realm. The Austrasians under the Arnulfing Pepin the Middle eventually triumphed in 687 at the Battle of Tertry and the chroniclers state unapologetically that, in that year, began the rule of Pepin.
Among the strong-willed kings who ruled during these desolate times, Dagobert II and Chilperic II deserve mention, but the mayors continued to exert their authority in both Neustria and Austrasia. Pepin's son Charles Martel even for a few years ruled without a king, though he himself did not assume the royal dignity. Later, his son Pepin the Younger or Pepin the Short, gathered support among Frankish nobles for a change in dynasty. When Pope Zachary appealed to him for assistance against the Lombards, Pepin insisted that the church sanction his coronation in exchange. In 751, Childeric III, the last Merovingian royal, was deposed. He was allowed to live, but his long hair was cut and he was sent to a monastery.
[edit]
Historiography and sources
There exists a limited number of contemporary sources for the history of the Merovingian Franks, but those which have survived cover the entire period from Clovis' succession to Childeric's deposition. First and foremost among chroniclers of the age is the canonised bishop of Tours, Gregory of Tours. His Decem Libri Historiarum is a primary source for the reigns of the sons of Clotaire II and their descendants until Gregory's own death.
The next major source, far less organised than Gregory's work, is the Chronicle of Fredegar, begun by Fredegar but continued by unknown authors. It covers the period from 584 to 641, though its continuators, under Carolingian patronage, extended it to 768, after the close of the Merovingian era. It is the only primary narrative source for much of its period. The only other major contemporary source is the Liber Historiae Francorum, which covers the final chapter of Merovingian history: its author(s) ends with a reference to Theuderic IV's sixth year, which would be 727. It was widely read, though it was a undoubtedly a piece of Carolingian work.
Aside from these chronicles, the only surviving reservoires of historiography are letters, capitularies, and the like. Clerical men such as Gregory and Sulpitius the Pious were letter-writers, though relatively few letters survive. Edicts, grants, and judicial decisions survive, as well as the famous Lex Salica, mentioned above. From the reign of Clotaire II and Dagobert I survive many examples of the royal position as the supreme justice and final arbiter.
Finally, archaeological evidence cannot be ignored as a source for information, at the very least, on the modus vivendi of the Franks of the time. Among the greatest discoveries of lost objects was the 1653 accidental uncovering of Childeric I's tomb in the church of Saint Brice in Tournai. The grave objects included a golden bull's head and the famous golden insects (perhaps bees, cicadas, aphids, or flies) on which Napoleon modelled his coronation cloak. In 1957, the sepulchre of Clotaire I's second wife, Aregund, was discovered in Saint Denis Basilica in Paris. The funerary clothing and jewellery were reasonably well-preserved, giving us a look into the costume of the time.
[edit]
Numismatics
Merovingian coins are on display at Monnaie de Paris, (the French mint) at 11, quai de Conti, Paris, France.
[edit]
Merovingians in popular culture
* Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln use the Merovingians in their book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982, reprinted 2004; Delacorte Press, ISBN 0-385-33859-7, as Holy Blood, Holy Grail), which later influenced the novel The Da Vinci Code. The claim was that the Merovingians were the descendants of Jesus Christ; it is seen as popular pseudohistory of the worst kind by academic historians.
* The Merovingian is a powerful computer program, portrayed by Lambert Wilson, in the 2003 science-fiction movies The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. His character has chosen a French accent, clothing style, and attitude. He is a broker of power and knowledge.
[edit]
References
* Beyerle, F and R. Buchner: Lex Ribuaria in MGH, Hannover 1954.
* Eugen Ewig: Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001.
* Patrick J. Geary: Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
* Kaiser, Reinhold: Das römische Erbe und das Merowingerreich, (Enzyklopädie deutscher Geschichte 26) (München, 2004)
* Rouche, Michael: "Private life conquers State and Society" in Paul Veyne (ed.), A History of Private Life: 1. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1987.
* Werner, Karl Ferdinand: Die Ursprünge Frankreichs bis zum Jahr 1000, Stuttgart 1989.
* Oman, Charles: The Dark Ages 476-918, London, 1914.
Dagobert II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Merovingian Dynasty
Kings of All the Franks
Kings of Neustria
Kings of Austrasia
Pharamond 410-426
Clodio 426-447
Merowig 447-458
Childeric I 458-481
Clovis I 481 - 511
Childebert I 511-558
Clotaire I 511-561
Chlodomer 511-524
Theuderic I 511-534
Theudebert I 534-548
Theudebald 548-555
Clotaire I 558-561
Charibert I 561-567
Chilperic I 561-584
Clotaire II 584-629
Guntram 561-592
Childebert II 592-595
Theuderic II 595-613
Sigebert II 613
Sigebert I 561-575
Childebert II 575-595
Theudebert II 595-612
Theuderic II 612-613
Sigebert II 613
Clotaire II 613-629
Dagobert I 623-629
Dagobert I 629-639
Charibert II 629-632
Chilperic 632
Clovis II 639-658
Clotaire III 658-673
Theuderic III 673
Childeric II 673-675
Theuderic III 675-691
Sigebert III 634-656
Childebert the Adopted 656-661
Clotaire III 661-662
Childeric II 662-675
Clovis III 675-676
Dagobert II 676-679
Theuderic III 679-691
Clovis IV 691-695
Childebert III 695-711
Dagobert III 711-715
Chilperic II 715-720
Clotaire IV 717-720
Theuderic IV 721-737
Childeric III 743-751
Dagobert II (c.650 – December 23, 679) was the king of Austrasia (676 – 679), the son of Sigebert III, one of the rois-fainéants ("do-nothing kings") and the last Merovingian dynasty to rule independently in Austrasia, with the exception of Charles Martel's dubious candidate Clotaire IV.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Overview
* 2 References in popular culture
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
[edit]
Overview
The Arnulfing mayor of the Austrasian palace, Grimoald the Elder, the son of Pippin of Landen, and Dagobert's guardian, had had his son Childebert adopted by Sigebert, who was at the time still childless. When Sigebert died in 656, Grimoald seized the throne for his own son and had Dagobert tonsured. The tale that Dagobert was ordered to be killed, that his death was published about, but that he was spirited out of the country seems to be an embellishment, perhaps developed to explain the silence of Dagobert's mother Chimnechild. She may have cooperated with Grimoald to set up Childebert the Adopted; later she hoped by marrying her daughter Bilichild to Childeric II to keep the eventual Austrasian heir in her bloodline. [1] It has also been hypothesised that Chimnechild was not Dagobert's mother, thus her reason for abandoning him.
Dagobert was given to the care of Desiderius, Bishop of Poitiers, where there was a cathedral school. The boy was sent on to a monastery in Ireland, sometimes identified as Slane, and to be further polished as a page at an Anglo-Saxon court in England. An old tradition relates that he had married Mechthilde, an Anglo-Saxon princess, during his exile, but the tradition that among his daughters was Saint Hermine, abbess of Oëren, and Saint Adula, abbess of Pfalzel, are fabrications, perhaps designed to link the saintly foundresses of these abbeys with the revered Merovingian line.
In the meantime the great nobles of Austrasia appealed to Clovis II, king of Neustria, who expelled the usurpers, executing Grimoald and Childebert, and added Austrasia to his own realm. The dating of these events is greatly confused, they occurred perhaps as soon after 656 as 657 or perhaps as late as 661, under Clotaire III, Clovis' son. The effective ruler however was the Neustrian major domo Ebroin, who was obliged in soon thereafter (in 660 or 662) to give the Austrasian realm a king of its own once more: the choice was the child king Childeric II, brother of Clotaire III, with a mayor of the palace, Wulfoald, as regent. The young king was assassinated on a hunt near Maastricht in 675, and in the chaotic power struggle that ensued, the Austrasian magnates, who wanted a king of Merovingian blood, pressed Wulfoald for the return of Dagobert, while opponents of Wulfoald acclaimed one Clovis III, possibly an impostor. Ebroin returned from a monastic "retirement" to lead Clovis' partisans, but Wulfoald effected Dagobert's succession in 676, partly through the help of Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, on Clovis' untimely death. In spite of the continuing bitter enmity of Ebroin and the party who had attempted to press Clovis as an alternate candidate, Dagobert was restored to a portion of his rightful lands, a territory along the Rhine, which pious tradition relates that he governed with the mildness and piety his childhood experience had taught him, but which history suggests he left largely to the mayor of the Austrasian palace, while he concerned himself more with the founding of cloisters and abbeys, including Surburg and Wissembourg in Alsace, where the Duke was his cousin. Nonetheless, he was undoubtedly an intelligent, educated man, an adult at the time of his succession, who could not be completely controlled by factions and mayors.
The dynamics of Dagobert's career are largely a passive reflection of the competition between two sources of power, patronage and prestige, the palace institutions of Neustria on the one hand, and on the other, of Austrasia, firmly in the control of the Arnulfing dynasty that would become the Carolingians in the following century. In the chaos, the search for a consistent, rational pattern is hard to follow in the shifting loyalties.
During revived conflict between Neustria and Austrasia, Dagobert in his turn was murdered in another hunting incident, December 23, 679, near Stenay-sur-Meuse in the Ardennes, probably on orders from Ebroin, still mayor of the palace in Neustria. Wilfrid must have remained in Austrasia until this time, because, according to his biographer, Wilfrid left Austrasia after the death of Dagobert, in mortal danger from the supporters of Ebroin. At the cloister of Stenay afterwards there grew a cult of Dagobert, venerated as early as 1068 as "Saint Dagobert". The cult spread from there into Lotharingia and Alsace, and Saint Dagobert is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, like his father and many royal Merovingians.
After Dagobert's brief reign, leaving his lands without a male heir, the lords of the Rhineland divided the territory among themselves, while Pippin II, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (679 – 714) dominated Austrasia, and left the throne empty until after the battle of Tertry (687), when he accepted Theuderic III.
[edit]
References in popular culture
Le Tresor Maudit, 1967
Enlarge
Le Tresor Maudit, 1967
The by now (in)famous attempt to associate Dagobert II and his supposed descendants with a secret Merovingian line of legitimate royal succession, unjustly displaced by the Carolingian and Capetian monarchies but continuing into modern times, is without historical foundation. It is one of the central myths in the historical fantasies associated with the town of Rennes-le-Château.
Many of the rumors were brought to mainstream attention by the 1982 pseudohistory book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which attempted to put forward a hypothesis that Jesus Christ had married Mary Magdalene and sired a child who had later married into the Merovingian line, and that the assassinated Dagobert II had really had a secret male heir who had been spirited away to "his mother's hometown" of Rennes-le-Chateau after his father's death. However, it was later discovered that much of the research in Holy Blood Holy Grail was based on "medieval" documents that turned out to be forgeries created as part of the Priory of Sion hoax. One set of forged medieval documents entitled Les Dossiers Secrets had been planted in the French National Library in the 1970s, and another set had been reproduced in a French "hidden treasure" book, Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau. In one of the documents in the book, an encrypted message revealed the phrase, "A Dagobert II Roi et a Sion est ce tresor et il est la mort." ( "To King Dagobert II and to Sion does this treasure belong, and he is there dead.")
The faulty hypotheses in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail gained further attention when they were incorporated into the 2003 bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Because Brown claimed the this historical information was "factual," many debunking books and documentaries resulted, further bringing the little-known Dagobert II into the public consciousness.
[edit]
See also
* Franks (main history of Frankish kingdoms)
* List of Frankish Kings
* Merovingians
[edit]
References
* Ökumenisches Heiligenlexikon: Dagobert II (in German)
* Lexikon des Mittelalters: III.429 (in German)
* BBC2: "From Merovingians to Carolingians : Dynastic Change in Frankia"
* Da Vinci Declassified, 2006 TLC documentary
From Merovingians to Carolingians - Dynastic Change in Frankia
Front Page
What is h2g2?
Who's Online
Write an Entry
Browse
Announcements
Feedback
h2g2 Help
RSS Feeds
Contact Us
Like this page?
Send it to a friend!
The Scene
When the last Merovingian king - Childeric III - was deposed in 751, the Merovingians were the oldest ruling dynasty in western Europe. That the dynasty, indeed the very Kingdom of the Franks, had endured for over two and a half centuries, makes it unique amongst the western states which succeeded the Roman Empire. Yet, after the death of Dagobert I in 638, most learned opinion agrees that Merovingian power began to fade. Wallace-Hadrill, for example, asserts there can be no question about the reality of the Merovingian decline after Dagobert I. Collins adds that after this time, the sources do not speak of the kings as being prime movers in the politics of the Franks. Traditionally, this decline is explained by the label applied to these later Merovingians: rois fainéants, “do-nothing kings”; kings who came to their seats as minors, were physically degenerate, and lived short, debauched lives, under the perpetual tutelage of the Mayors of the Palace. However, more recent opinion suggests that the eclipse of the Merovingians is not so easy to make sense of; that it was a complex and prolonged saga, the outcome of which was certainly not inevitable. Indeed, Wallace-Hadrill states that the accusation of degeneracy is unnecessary to account for the eventual deposition of Childeric III. What, then, had gone wrong for the Merovingians?
Background to the End: "I Hate This War"
Although the Merovingians are not considered to have lost their grip on practical power until the period after Dagobert’s death, the seeds of their decline had been planted much earlier, in the field of Merovingian kingship. Most Merovingian kings do not appear to have possessed a strong sense of res publica, or duty to the public. Many administrative functions were either considered the province of the Church, or were left in the hands of officials such as counts, dukes, and Mayors of the Palace. James notes that a Merovingian king, rather, was a “war-leader, judge, a potential source of patronage, and an object of awe and fear”. Davis describes the style of kingship as “despotism tempered by assassination”, though the institution of the Marchfield, which continued into the reigns of the so-called rois fainéants, suggests at least some type of representative administration and law-making. Notwithstanding, it was considered natural that, when a king died, his kingdom would be divided amongst his sons. This custom of dividing a kingdom as an inheritance is a cardinal fact in Merovingian history.
Wallace-Hadrill points out that Frankish society in general had no real reason to cherish an ideal of political unity; the Merovingians neither inherited nor propagated such as ideal. However, the practice of dividing a kingdom inevitably led to internecine feud and civil war. Davis comments on the ferocity and skill with which the Merovingians (and their queens) fought and assassinated one another, citing this as the main reason the inherited partitions did not gradually become smaller and smaller. Division of the kingdom would have inhibited the growth of a centralised and efficient royal administration. In addition, James notes that feud within the royal family ruptured family bonds and potentially weakened the dynasty. The place of warfare in Frankish society reveals another clue for later Merovingian decline. A king could only prosper with the support and assistance of warriors, and these had to be rewarded in some way, with treasure or land. As such, a treasury and landed estates - such as the imperial fisc - were the keystone of a king’s political power. Both of these could most easily be won by warfare. Thus, with the cessation of territorial expansion in the seventh century, the Merovingians lost one of their main sources of revenue. James underlines this as a significant factor in their loss of power. Wallace-Hadrill concurs and goes further to say that a chief reason for the growing Merovingian political weakness was that they squandered the imperial fisc in gifts. However, he does caution elsewhere not to over-interpret the drying-up of Merovingian wealth; the kingship held its course for much of its final century with few of the benefits of estates to bestow. A lack of means might indeed have meant a lack of potestas (power), but not necessarily a lack of auctoritas (will or authority).
James maintains that civil war between Merovingian kingdoms was in fact profitable, at least for the winning side. Civil war replaced warfare with foreign powers as a source of booty. James also argues that the partition of the kingdom might have actually ensured the survival of the dynasty, though perhaps not individual kings. Instead of rebelling against the dynasty, rival magnates would rally around a rival Merovingian. While this might indeed have been the case, civil war continued to have some less favourable consequences for the Merovingians.
By 613, Chlothar II had reunited the Merovingian kingdom after a long period of civil war, waged since the death of his grandfather Chlothar I in 561. However, instead of exercising a centralised administration, the three kingdoms of Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundy continued to have their own “palace”, with Aquitaine being divided amongst the three. Further, in the Edict of Paris of 613, Chlothar allowed that counts be appointed from their own region by local bishops and magnates. Davis and Moss both claim that Chlothar was forced to make these concession by the aristocracy. Moss asserts that the Austrasian aristocracy had in fact been necessary agents in Chlothar’s victory. While such a “bargain” does not need to have occurred, the Edict certainly announces an official curtailing of the power of a Merovingian king, and an increase in the role of the aristocracy.
Davis sees the preceding period of civil war as being responsible for the events of 613. He argues that in a time of uncertainty, an ambitious man trying to make his way in the royal service would have been most successful allying himself with the local Mayor of the Palace, who was after all the “prime minister”, thus creating a form of vassalage. Such a system of vassalage would have played a large part in weakening the power of the kings. This argument has some merit, though it does rely on the assumption that vassalage to the Mayor - rather than the king - would have been of greater benefit, and that protection from a “despotic” king and his agents was necessary. Davis further proposes that an army of vassals would have been a more effective fighting force than the king’s “host”. Thus, it is not hard to imagine the kings coming to rely upon their more powerful aristocrats, such as their Mayors. It is conceivable, then, that the Edict of 613 could have been the result of pressure from aristocrats. In any event, the civil wars undoubtedly contributed to growing divisions between the kingdoms, which Wallace-Hadrill asserts could only weaken kingship, by increasing the power of local magnates.
As mentioned earlier, Chlothar’s son Dagobert I was the last Merovingian who is considered to have wielded real power. But Wallace-Hadrill does argue that the eventual removal of the Merovingians could not have been predicted at the time of Dagobert’s death. The seeds of the Merovingian decline still had to sprout and grow. Further factors were needed to provide the conditions for a continued decline.
The "Rois Fainéants"
Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that the later Merovingians were labelled rois fainéants, is that several began their reigns as minors, under the influence of dowager queens as regents and, perhaps more significantly, Mayors of the Palace. On Dagobert’s death in 638, his kingdom was divided between his two young sons: the nine year old Sigebert III, who had been king in Austrasia since 634, and the five year old Clovis II. Wallace-Hadrill reasons that it was the youthfulness of these kings - and the two that followed: Childeric II in Austrasia and Chlothar III in Neustria - not any incapacity to rule, that explains how the magnates came to deputise for the Merovingians. Sigebert spent his entire reign under the supervision of the Austrasian Arnulfings, a family already rich in property; similarly Clovis under Neustrian magnates such as Aega and Erchinoald. During these minorities, regents and Mayors were appointed by the aristocracy, rather than the kings. From this period onwards, few of the Merovingian kings are seen as exercising much personal power. Thus, a crucial transformation had occurred from 638 to c.660 in the exercise of authority in Francia. There is a difference between these Merovingians and their predecessors. Those who engineered their ascendencies and exclusions, and their assassinations, were members of the aristocracy, not other Merovingians. This is not to say that this sort of thing had not occurred before, but now it was the rule rather than the exception. Such a transformation might also have been facilitated by the diminishment of Merovingian military credibility. For example, Sigebert III lead his army to a defeat at the hands of the Thuringians in 639. While his defeat may be attributed to contradictory advice from his magnates, the humiliation fell squarely on the shoulders of Sigebert: “he sat on his horse weeping unrestrainedly”. Though it should be remembered that Sigebert was only ten years old at the time, Wallace-Hadrill sees this as another sign of the Merovingian decline.
The kingship of infant Merovingians further facilitated the formation of factions of aristocrats, focussed around controlling the office of Mayor of the Palace. The possibility emerged then of one faction gaining control. A pertinent example is provided by Wood. When Chlothar III died in Neustria in 673, Ebroin the Mayor seems to have chosen a successor - Theuderic III - without any support. He did not summon the magnates to the formal elevation, and even prevented them from approaching the king. This ultimately led to his and Theuderic’s tonsuring, though they were both able to return in 675. Significantly, what Ebroin had shown was that it was possible for one faction to exclude others from the king’s court. In doing so, Wood argues, he undermined the position of the court in the Merovingian kingdoms, and thus the very tradition of the Marchfield. Thus, “a power structure on which the dynasty had depended was under threat”, and kings had to rely more on force of personality in order to exercise any authority.
The Rise of the Mayors of the Palace
In Austrasia, the most powerful faction that developed centred around the Arnulfing (or Pippinid) house. Although they had no hereditary right, some member of the Arnulfing house held the office of Mayor from 639 to 751. As all unitary Merovingian kings during this period chose to exercise their authority from Neustria, the Arnulfings could gain even greater control over resources and patronage in their region. In 687, Mayor Pippin II, possibly at the invitation of a local faction, invaded Neustria and defeated Berchar, the Neustrian Mayor. Pippin then became “the chief ruling agent of King Theuderic”. The Kingdom of the Franks was thus united for the first time under one Mayor. That Pippin was now undisputed master of Francia, Collins calls an oversimplification, explaining that his rule over Neustria and by extension Burgundy was normally vicarious. However, Pippin could exercise a great deal of personal power in Neustria, perhaps best illustrated when he gave the Neustrians his illegitimate and infant grandson Theudoald as Mayor in 711. Pippin chose the Neustrian Mayors, who operated under his banner.
Authors such as Davis and Moss regard the ascendancy of the Arnulfings in 687 as the effective end of the Merovingians. Other authors are less convinced. There are in fact numerous instances of Merovingian kings exercising some authority after this date. Wallace-Hadrill, for example, states that from c.660 to the removal of Childeric III in 751, there exists no less than 75 royal instruments, with kings still exercising largitas with what remained of the imperial fisc. Using evidence from charters and more specifically placita, Wood contends that kings still retained their judicial power. More significantly, he shows that of the seven placita surviving from Childebert III’s reign (695-711), three uphold claims against the sons of Pippin II (with one even showing Pippin as a witness). Childebert does not behave as a king “under-the-thumb”. It is perhaps not surprising to find him referred to in the Liber Historiae Francorum as a “famous man”.
However, there is little evidence that after Chilperic II (715-721) the Merovingian were anything more than puppets of the Arnulfings. Chilperic might have been the last with the force of will necessary to operate in the king’s weakened position. Here it must be remembered that the sources for this period of Frankish history are limited. In Collins’ view, there is little evidence and much of it is “through the distorted mirror of the Carolingian historiographical tradition”. With the possible exception of the Liber Historiae Francorum, the sources for this period, including the Chronicle of Fredegar, are either non-contemporary or written in a region of Arnulfing/Carolingian rule or ascendancy. It is fair to say, therefore, that the last Merovingians do not speak for themselves. Indeed, James refers to them as “misty figures”; it is difficult to distinguish between what they did versus what was done in their name.
The End is Nigh
That the Merovingians managed to endure till 751 does suggest that they were still necessary in some way. Indeed, Pippin II’s son Charles Martel (the first Carolus) elevated Chlothar IV in Austrasia in 718 in response to Chilperic II being elevated in Neustria by the now independent Mayor Ragamfred. Furthermore, when Chlothar died in 719, Charles negotiated for the return of Chilperic II from Aquitaine, where the latter had fled. In 743, Charles’ sons Pippin III and Carloman I, elevated Childeric III, after an interregnum of six years. The Merovingians still provided legitimacy: they were the ancient dynasty under which the Franks and their church had grown up. They could have endured indefinitely, and there is no indication that the Carolingians (as they might now be called) had the kingship as their ultimate goal. The Continuator of the Chronicle of Fredegar, for example, states of Theuderic IV (721-737) that “(he) still reigns over us and looks forward to years of life”. The eventual deposition of Childeric III, therefore, could be said to have occurred quite suddenly.
In 750, Pippin III - now the sole Mayor - sent two emissaries to Rome to ask Pope Zacharias: how should a ruler enjoying no power rightly continue to bear the title king? Such a call to Rome illuminates a strategic side to Pippin’s thinking; his choice of emissaries reveals much regarding his influences and motivations. One emissary was an Englishman called Burghard. Englishmen, such as St. Boniface, had been conducting missionary work with the support of Charles Martel, and there is no indication that Pippin ever withdrew this support. English practice and sympathy would have regarded a rex sine potestate, “a king without power”, as an anathema, and the spread of such views might have been sponsored by people such as Boniface. It would certainly have been expedient for Boniface to support any Carolingian move in that direction; he needed their assistance for his missionary work. The other emissary was a Frank named Fulrad, Abbot of the Merovingian monastery of St. Denis. Both Pippin III and Carloman I had been educated at St Denis, and Fulrad was one of Pippin’s closest advisers. The choice of Fulrad reflects Pippin’s need to gain the support of the Merovingian church for his intended action. The Merovingians themselves had earned the gratitude of the Catholic church in the time of Clovis I, and both church and crown enjoyed a special relationship. The church had on the whole benefited from Merovingian patronage, and, being a conservative institution, would not easily have abandoned their old benefactors. Without the approval of the church, no amount of secular support would have won Pippin the throne. The visible support of the St. Denis community, represented by Fulrad, would have been decisive in swaying the loyalties of the church from the Merovingians to the Carolingians.
Pippin’s request would have also been in keeping with Papal and scriptural tradition: kings should be seen to rule, as Old Testament kings had ruled. In addition, Pippin’s envoy had caught the Pope at a critical time. The Lombards were threatening Rome from the north, and the Papacy had need of a protector. The Franks, under the Carolingians, were the most secure and powerful Christian state at the time; it was in the interests of Pope Zacharias, and his successor Stephen II, that the Carolingians be strengthened in their power by being given the kingship. The Merovingians could no longer provide what was needed for the church. Thus, according to the Continuator of the Chronicle of Fredegar, Papal sanction was given and Pippin, with the consent of all the Franks, was “consecrated by the bishops and received the homage of the great men”. Childeric III and his son were tonsured and sent off to a monastery. Wallace-Hadrill argues that the coronation ritual possibly compensated not so much for the lack of royal blood, but for the loss of face for breaking an oath of fidelity. It eased the consciences of both the Carolingians and the Frankish people. With this new rite, they could uphold the institution of kingship without the “blood of Meroveus”. Therefore, the Merovingian dynasty could now be replaced.
Epilogue
Wallace-Hadrill has variously referred to the deposition of Childeric III as a coup d’etat, a violent removal, and a dismissal. Indeed, the end was unpredicted and, in retrospect, multifarious in its genesis. The Merovingian kings had lost their power through a diminishment in their ability to reward their followers; a consequent need to rely on their increasingly powerful magnates, particularly during civil war, and a succession of minority kingships during a crucial period. The Mayors of the Palace came to rule in their stead. But the Merovingians did not simply fade away; they were removed after a final desertion by the church, engineered by the Carolingian Pippin III. Perhaps the best summation was made by Pope Gregory VII. Looking back on the actions of Zacharias, he observed that Childeric III had not been removed for any moral defects. Rather he - and by extension the Merovingian line - was deposed quod non erat utilis, “because he was not useful”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bachrach, B.S. (ed.), Liber Historiae Francorum, Kansas: Coronado Press, 1973.
Collins, R. Early Medieval Europe 300-1000, London: MacMillan Educational, 1991.
Davis, R.H.C. A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to Saint Louis (Second Edition), London: Longman Group UK, 1988.
Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne, transl. L. Thorpe, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969.
Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, transl. L. Thorpe, Harmondworth: Penguin Books, 1974.
Halphen, L. Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire, transl. G. de Nie, New York: North-Holland Publishing, 1977.
James, E. The Origins of France: From Clovis to the Capetians, 500-1000, London: MacMillan Press, 1982.
James, E. The Franks, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Moss, H.St.L.B. The Birth of the Middle Ages 395-814, London: Oxford University Press, 1972. (Originally published in 1935).
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History, London: Methuen & Co., 1962.
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. Early Medieval History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975.
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. (ed.), The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, with its Continuations, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. The Frankish Church, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. The Barbarian West 400-1000, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1996.
Wood, I. The Merovingian Kingdoms 450-751, London: Longman Group UK, 1994.
Beyond The Da Vinci Code: History and Myth of the Priory of Sion
Massimo Introvigne
A paper presented at the 2005 CESNUR Conference in Palermo, Sicily. Preliminary version – do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author
In January 2005 Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, Archbishop of Genoa, phoned me asking whether I would like to speak at the Quadrivium, an historical Genoa Catholic conference center which has not been active for several years, and where I used to be a frequent speaker several years ago. I accepted, and we decided that an appropriate topic might be the current fuss about The Da Vinci Code and the Priory of Sion. My lecture was scheduled for March 16, 2005 with the Cardinal presiding and concluding. Unbeknownst to both of us, the Cardinal and I had set in motion a curious set of events. Word that “a Roman Catholic Cardinal was about to excommunicate The Da Vinci Code” quickly spread, with the result that we had at the lecture more than one hundred international TV chains, while several hundred reporters sought accreditations, including one from China and two from India. Considering only those daily newspapers and TV networks having an Internet presence, the lecture was reported by 1,308 media. We had to explain in a press conference that my lecture was more about esoteric movements than theology: but to no avail. Reporters were understandably much more interested in the fact that a Roman Catholic Cardinal – and one rumoured at that time to be a candidate for Papacy – was endorsing a criticism of Dan Brown’s novel than in any comment about the historical reality of the Priory of Sion.
In this paper, addressed to fellow scholars rather than journalists, I will not comment on whether Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, the historical accuracy of the Gnostic Gospels, or what Opus Dei is really all about. More in touch with the aim of this conference, the paper will trace the real history of the Priory of Sion, perhaps less interesting than Dan Brown’s mythology, yet an interesting if minor part in the history of France’s new religious and magical movements.
Our story starts on February 6, 1934. This is still remembered as a key and tragic date in the history of the French Monarchist movement Action Française. On January 9, 1934, controversial businessman Serge Alexandre Stavisky (1885-1934) was found dead in his mountain chalet in Chamonix, France. He had apparently committed suicide. Staviski was a con man and a counterfeiter, and its frauds had ruined several thousand French middle class investors. Stavisky was also very much everything the right-wing opposition to the government of Prime Minister Camille Chautemps (1885-1963) detested. He was Jewish, close to the French anti-religious Freemasonry (although not a Freemason himself), and a friend of several cabinet ministers of Socialist inclinations. Rumors quickly spread that Stavisky did not commit suicide at all, but had been killed by the police in order to prevent him from revealing his dealings with the Chautemps government. Protestors took to the Paris streets, and Chautemps had to resign on January 30. This, however, did not end the protest. At that time, Monarchism was a force to be reckoned with in France. It was mostly represented by the Action Française, a movement founded by Charles Maurras (1868-1952). The Action Française called for a mass rally on February 6. Republican authorities seriously feared that a Monarchist coup was being prepared. Instructions to react very strongly were given to the police. When the crowd refused to disperse, the policemen fired, leaving four Action Française activists dead and many blessed.
The event and the “martyrs” of February 6, 1934 remain to this date a mythological memory for the French Monarchist movement. At that time, however, the tragedy caused a split in the Action Française. While Maurras refused to call for a general Monarchist insurrection against the Republic, one of the movement’s leaders, Eugène Deloncle (1890-1944), created a splinter group known as CSAR (Secret Committee for Revolutionary Action), decided to go underground and to organize terrorist activities. Deloncle’s group was nicknamed “La Cagoule” by the media, which made more of it than it actually ever managed to be. Authorities were able to incriminate the CSAR for only one terrorist attack, against the offices of the French Industrialists’ Union on September 11, 1937. The target also shows that the differences between Maurras and Deloncle were not purely strategic. In fact, Deloncle combined a willingness to use violence with an anti-capitalistic populism that he did not regard as incompatible with Monarchism. At any rate, Deloncle was arrested in July 1938 and charged with plans to organize a military dictatorship under Marechal Louis Franchet d’Esperey (1856-1942), a popular World War I hero who quickly denied any knowledge of the project.
Deloncle’s splinter group met with considerable enthusiasm among the sizeable constituency the Action Française had managed to build in French high schools. One high school student who followed Deloncle and ran into trouble with the police, without being involved however in any terrorist activity, was Pierre-Athanase-Marie Plantard (1920-2000), the son of a butler and a concierge who was so much in love with the Monarchy to invent for himself imaginary aristocratic and even Royal genealogies. In 1937, Plantard dropped out of high school and established with some of his friends the Union Française (French Union), a group inspired by Deloncle’s ideas but probably without any contact with Deloncle himself, who was at that time operating underground. The seventeen-year old Plantard also started to show a penchant for mysticism and symbols. He regarded as significant that his group had been founded in 1937, because 1937 contains the same numbers of 1793, the year in which the French anti-Monarchist persecution period known as the Terror started during the Revolution. The founding of the French Union was, thus, a way of mystically “reversing” the effects of the French Revolution through numerology.
Plantard was a reasonably effective student leader. In 1938 he managed to raise enough money to publish an illegal magazine, La Rénovation Française, of which some ten thousand copies were given for free in Paris. Plantard made his living by working as a paid sexton in the Catholic Church of Saint-Louis d’Antin. Thanks to the benevolence of the local vicar, a priest called François Ducaud-Bourget (1897-1984), which many years later will became well-known as an associate of the splinter Catholic arch-conservative movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), he managed to became the parish leader for the Catholic youth group Groupement Catholique de la Jeunesse. In 1939, he led 75 students of this group into a camping vacation. According to police reports, some of them were eventually recruited into the French Union. With the German occupation, Plantard offered his services to the collaborationist government of Marechal Henri-Philippe Pétain (1856-1951) in a letter dated December 16, 1940. Both the German and the French police investigated, determined that the movement had at most 100 members, and did not take Plantard seriously.
In 1941, Plantard founded a new organization known as the Rénovation Nationale Française (French National Renewal) and applied for the mandatory registration with the German authorities, claiming 3.245 members. The German police determined that the members were, in fact, only four, and refused the registration. Undaunted, Plantard went on to establish in 1942 yet another and more ambitious organization, called Alpha Galates. This time, Plantard prepared very detailed by-laws which were back-dated to 1937 and revealed, in addition to the usual Monarchist and right-wing political ideas, a quasi-Masonic initiation system in twelve degrees, culminating in the degree of “Druidic Majesty”, reserved to one person only, i.e. Plantard himself. What had happened in the meantime was that Plantard’s mother, a concierge by trade, had moved from one building to another, and in the second building Plantard met new friends, including two well-known radio actors (still alive today), Jacques Thereau and Suzanne Libre, as well as Jules-Joseph-Alfred Tillier (1896-1980), a respected employee of the Compagnie des Forges et Acièries de la Marine d’Homécourt and a friend of Paul Le Cour (1861-1954).
Although Le Cour was a quite heterodox esoteric Christian, and one anticipating several ideas later associated with the New Age movement, he was also a participant in the Masses organized in the church where Plantard continued his work as a sexton by Father Ducaud-Bourget for a circle of right-wing intellectuals, including philosopher Louis Le Fur (1870-1943) and Orientalist Count Maurice de Moncharville (1860-1943). Alpha Galates published a short-lived bulletin, Vaincre, where the signatures of both Le Fur and Moncharville appeared, although it cannot be excluded that Plantard signed some of his own articles with their names, with or without their authorization. Another signature which appeared in Vaincre and may have been apocryphal was that of Camille Savoire (1869-1951), a prominent French Freemason close to the French anti-German resistance. Since Plantard and his circle were at that time quite anti-Masonic and pro-German, the signature may in fact have been abusively used by Plantard himself. However at that time Plantard, Le Cour, Tillier and Savoire did have something in common. They were all studying with interest the monographs of the French branch of AMORC, the American Rosicrucian organization established in 1915 by Harvey Spencer Lewis (1883-1939), and were in touch with Jeanne Guesdon (1884-1955), the leading AMORC representative in France. Although Plantard himself was never a member of AMORC, he later became friend with Raymond Bernard, who will become AMORC’s leading figure in France in the 1970s before leaving the Rosicrucian organization.
All these contacts explain the esoteric structure of Alpha Galates; and the esoteric rather than the political aspects were emphasized for obvious reasons after the war. However, Alpha Galates, just as the previous organizations established by Plantard, was not successful. It never included more than fifty members, and collapsed in 1947. A subsequent “Latin Academy”, founded by Plantard in 1947, never went beyond two members: Plantard himself and his mother. In 1951, having married Anne Léa Hisler (1930-1970), Plantard moved from Paris to the cheaper town of Annemasse, near the Lake of Geneva. Here he went to jail for six months at the end of 1953, accused of selling degrees of esoteric orders for exorbitant sums.
But Plantard was by now incorrigible. On May 7, 1956 he legally incorporated in Annemasse yet another esoteric and political order known as Priory of Sion – C.I.R.C.U.I.T. (Chivalry of Catholic Rule and Institution and of Independent Traditionalist Union). The politics of the Priory of Sion was quite modest and focused on supporting politicians determined to build low-cost houses for the working classes of Annemasse. But the esoteric aims were grandiose as usual: the stated purpose was nothing less than restoring the Medieval Chivalry, and to build an initiatory system of three “orders” whereby the third order had nine degrees (quite similar to Alpha Galates’). The reference to a “Priory of Sion” was not to Jerusalem, but to Mount Sion near Annemasse, where the order hoped to be able to purchase a home and convert it into a retreat centre.
The results were even worse than usual. Not only did the new organization fail to attract members. Plantard was involved in an unpleasant story of abuse of minors, spent another year in jail between 1956-1957, and was divorced by his wife. Released from jail, he thought it wise to move to Paris and to switch the Priory of Sion’s politics into supporting the rising star of General Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970). Elected as President in 1958, the General did sent a letter of thanks to Plantard (he probably sent similar letters to thousands of individuals and organizations), but then proceeded to ignore the Priory as other politicians had done before him.
Both Plantard and the Priory lived a very difficult life in the early 1960s. Whatever income Plantard made was by offering his services as a psychic under the name of “Chyren the Seer”. By 1964, however, Plantard was ready to try again his luck with the Priory of Sion, this time through the version which eventually inspired The Da Vinci Code. Plantard had come across the curious story of the parish church of a small French village of less than one hundred inhabitants in the Aude region, at the foot of the eastern Pyrenees mountains, Rennes-le-Château, were a hidden treasury had been supposedly discovered in 1897 by the local parish priest, Berenger Saunière (1852-1917). There were those who claimed that the treasury consisted not of gold or antiques but of secret documents which enabled the parish priest to come into contact with the esoteric and political milieu of the time and become incredibly wealthy.
The story of Saunière has been debunked by several scholarly studies, and does not need to be examined in depth here. The parish priest did not become a millionaire, even though he became wealthy enough to be able to acquire property and build a villa and library tower in Rennes. His real – as opposed to fictional – wealth was explained during the course of a canonical process against Saunière started by the Bishop of Carcassonne, Paul Félix Beuvain de Beauséjour (1839-1930. Beginning in 1896, Saunière embarked upon a road – illegal from the point of view of both canon law and civil law, but not invented by him nor particularly mysterious – of “trafficking in Masses”. Between 1896 and 1915, from his meticulous notes one can deduce that he received stipends for at least one hundred thousand Masses: five or six thousand a year at the high point of the operation. The documentation exists: both in terms of letters and announcements in which a “poor priest” asks for stipends for the celebration of Masses sent to convents or other individuals; as well as in terms of publications in pious magazines throughout all of France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Italy -– the list goes on and includes hundreds of benefactors approached many times over and recorded in accounts on a month-by-month basis. The objection, according to which at that time -– unlike today – the Catholic Church did not tolerate that a priest could accumulate various intentions for a single Mass, it was impossible for Saunière to celebrate five or six thousand Masses a year, does not really makes the “trafficking in Masses” activity impossible, but certainly raises questions about the honesty of the priest: and it is an objection that is answered by itself. Simply put, the parish priest of Rennes-le-Château pocketed stipends for Masses that he would never celebrate.
Although Saunière’s naïve defense referred alternatively to his having found a non-existent Visigoth or Cathar treasury, after his death the story became variously embellished, particularly by Noël Corbu (1912-1968), the restaurant owner and one-time detective fiction writer who became the owner of Saunière’s properties in 1953. In the early 1960s, Plantard met Corbu and changed the Saunière legend for his own purposes. According to Plantard’s version, the legitimate heirs to the throne of France to this very day are still the Merovingians, dethroned in 751 by the Carolingians. Furthermore, contrary to public opinion, the Merovingians are not extinct but have surviving descendants still alive, the last of which in 1967 was Pierre Plantard, who was therefore the only true contender to the role of King of France (of course, under the improbable case of a restoration of the French monarchy). In order to protect the descendants of the Merovingians from the Carolingians and later from other enemies, a secret society was formed, the Priory of Sion.
Plantard, thus, started to claim that the Priory of Sion, which he had founded in 1956, was a much older organization. He discovered in a book about the history of the Crusades that an “Abbey of Our Lady of Mount Zion” had been founded in 1099 in Jerusalem by Godefroy de Bouillon (1060-1100), who later became King of Jerusalem after the First Crusade. The community of monks of the Abbey (and not “Priory”, as the superior was called Abbot and not Prior) in Palestine continued to exist until 1291, when it was destroyed by the advancing Muslims. The few surviving monks took refuge in Sicily, where their community was extinguished in the 14th century. This was a very normal community of Catholic monks, without any ties to esoteric secrets: the “recovery” of which by Plantard was simply the use of their name, and nothing else.
Plantard also claimed that the Priory of Sion later had as Grand Masters certain alchemists and esoteric personalities such as Nicolas Flamel (well known to Harry Potter readers, yet in reality an historical person born in 1330 and deceased in 1418), Robert Fludd (1574-1637) and the principal promoter of the Rosicrucian legend, Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654), as well as scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The last of the Grand Masters would have been the writers Charles Nodier (1780-1844) and Victor Hugo (1802-1885), the musician Claude Debussy (1862-1918), the poet and novelist Jean Cocteau (1889-1963) and the same Father, later Monsignor, Francois Ducaud-Bourget for which as we have seen Plantard worked as a sexton during World War II. Ducaud-Bourget (it was claimed) had later transferred the position to Plantard. It was also claimed that, by pure chance, documents revealing the truth concerning the Priory of Sion, hidden in the parish church of Rennes-le-Château, were discovered in 1897 by the local parish priest Berenger Saunière who, thanks to the knowledge of the secret, was able to blackmail the Bourbon royal family of France and become, in fact, quite wealthy.
In order to support these claims, Plantard enlisted the help of Philippe de Chérisey (1925-1985), an impoverished French marquis who was a professional TV actor and a devotee of enigmatic riddles. Chèrisey and Plantard prepared a number of apocryphal documents (some, in fact, riddles), which they deposited between 1965-1967 into Paris’ French National Library. On the basis of these “documents” a third co-conspirator, Gérard de Sède (1921-2004), a farmer specialized in raising pigs turned esoteric author, “revealed” the Rennes – Priory of Sion story to the world in his 1967 book L’Or de Rennes.
All these three musketeers – Plantard, Chérisey and de Sède – later admitted in writing that the documents planted in the Paris National Library between 1965-67 were a “brilliant” hoax. As for the list of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion, including Leonardo, all the names except two came from some of the lists of alleged “Imperators”, i.e., supreme heads, and “distinguished members” of the AMORC which circulated in France at the time when Plantard was in touch with this Rosicrucian order. For readers of The Da Vinci Code, it is useful to note that neither the Priory of Sion publications nor the 1965-1967 forged documents ever mentioned that the Merovingians were the carnal descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This particular was later added (based on esoteric theories by French Gnostic leader Robert Ambelain, 1907-1997) by the British actor Henry Soskin, writing as Henry Lincoln, when he rewrote with co-authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh the Rennes legend into its 1982 Holy Blood, Holy Grail, in turn so much a direct inspiration for The Da Vinci Code that Dan Brown has been sued by the authors for plagiarism.
Plantard, although initially surprised, played Lincoln’s game for a while, hinting in talk shows that yes, he may indeed have been not only the last of the Merovigians but also the last living descendants of Jesus Christ. However, Lincoln soon became afraid that Plantard’s reputation as a con man may eventually destroy his credibility, and Plantard in turn realized that Lincoln’s book was not attracting members to his Priory of Sion. The two parted company in quite bitter terms in 1986, with Lincoln claiming that his whole story about Jesus, the Magdalene and the Merovingians may have been true even if Plantard was a fraud, and Plantard dismissing both the documents of the 1960s and Holy Blood, Holy Grail as false and irrelevant, and presenting yet a new incarnation of the Priory of Sion in 1989. This time, its main secret had nothing to do with the Merovingians, let alone Jesus Christ, but focused on the alleged extraordinary energy and transformative powers of the earth and rocks of a certain mountain near Rennes-le-Château known as Rocco Negro. Coincidentally, most of the mountain had been bought by Plantard.
However, this new (and quite New Age-ish) Priory of Sion also failed, just as all the other esoteric orders founded by Plantard during his life had failed before. It never recruited more than a dozen members. At the end of his life Plantard was a broken man, living in very difficult circumstances. He realized that all the publicity about the mythical Priory of Sion by Lincoln’s book did not benefit the real Priory of Sion he had incorporated in 1956 and still controlled. He left the Priory to his son, although it is now Gino Sandri, a well-known figure in the French esoteric milieu, who keeps alive Plantard’s 1956 creation. Plantard died in 2000, and at least did not have to witness how much money an American author was making with the Priory of Sion, a creation of his which never made him rich. However, not even The Da Vinci Code seems to persuade a significant number of people to seek the real Priory established by Plantard, an organization who still owns the legal rights to the trade name despite the claims of several American imitations. The Priory of Sion remains simply a minor, if interesting, footnote in the history of the French esoteric orders of the 20th century.
References
Several key documents on the early Priory of Sion are posted in the Web site of Paul Smith, http://www.priory-of-sion.com/. Although my interpretation is occasionally different, no serious research on Plantard’s activities, including my own, could even start without taking advantage of this treasury cave of documents. Full references to all the texts mentioned are provided in the bibliography of my Italian book Gli Illuminati e il Priorato di Sion (Piemme, Milano 2005).
CYBERPROCEEDINGS INDEX
http://priory-of-sion.com/dvc/documentaries.html
Da Vinci Code Documentaries
Paul Smith
Several recent documentaries shown both on satellite and on terrestrial television have investigated Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code – all of which focused primarily on the "central truth" found in the novel – alleging that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married and had produced children – the descendants of which survive to this very day. None of the documentaries endorsed any of the theories or allegations found in The Da Vinci Code (or in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail or in Margaret Starbird's books) – and the quality of the documentaries listed below varied from the very bland (those presented by Elizabeth Vargas in particular) to the no-nonsense hard debunkings offered by BBC 2 (in 1996), the Discovery Channel, Channel Four Television, CBS News ‘60 Minutes’ and BBC Four. The documentary aired by The History Channel entitled Beyond The Da Vinci Code was only worth watching for its high production values (although a later updated version shown on British television cut the waffle by half and introduced more critical material).
Although not strictly a 'Da Vinci Code documentary' and more of "The Michael Baigent show" promoting the discredited modern myths of Rennes-le-Château, The History Channel's Investigating History: The Holy Grail was worth watching for its film footage of the excavation of the Tour Magdala in Rennes-le-Château on 20 August 2003.
So, pick of the bunch from the documentaries listed below must be the ones aired by BBC 2 The History of a Mystery (in 1996), The Discovery Channel Conspiracies On Trial: The Da Vinci Code, Channel Four Television The Real Da Vinci Code, CBS News ‘60 Minutes’ The Secret of the Priory of Sion and BBC Four The Da Vinci Code - The Greatest Story Ever Sold – simply because those documentaries concentrated on the very basics and contained no pointless waffle.
Timewatch: The History of a Mystery
BBC 2 (InVision Productions), 17 September 1996
Written and Directed by William Cran
Featured Antoine Captier, Claire Corbu, Gérard de Sède, Robert McCrum, Paul Schellenberger, Richard Andrews, Professor Martin Kemp, Pierre Jarnac, John Hamill, Jean-Luc Chaumeil (with archive footage of Henry Lincoln, Professor Christopher Cornford and Pierre Plantard)
In Search of History: The Holy Grail
The History Channel (FilmRoos, Inc; A & E Television Networks), December 1997
Executive Producer Bram Roos
Produced by Truusje Rushner
Featured Norris J Lacy, Bonnie Wheeler, Caitlin Matthews, John Matthews, Laurence Gardner
*A revised version of the documentary The Quest for the Holy Grail, being part of The History Channel's Ancient Mysteries series, shown in August 1997
In Search of The Holy Grail
The Learning Channel/Discovery Communications/New York Times (Bluebook Films), 18 February 2003
Produced and Directed by Bruce Burgess
Featured Simon Kirk, Michael Blackburn, Dr Juliette Wood, Gerald Morgan, Andrew Sinclair, Michael Orchard, Michael Baigent, Canon Jaime Sancho
Legend Hunters: The Holy Grail - the real story (Pilot Episode)
Discovery: Travel Channel US (Partners In Motion), 11 April 2003
Producer: Paul Compton
Executive Producer: Ron Goetz
Featured Stephen Moore, PhD., Henry Lincoln; Michael Stokes, John Brunsdon, MBE; Andrew Collins; Graham Phillips; Rosemary Arscott; Steve Mizrach, PhD
Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci
ABC News Productions, 3 November 2003
Directed by Rudy Bednar, Presented and Written by Elizabeth Vargas
Featured Dan Brown; Father Richard McBrien, PhD; Professor Elaine Pagels, PhD; Darrell L Bock, PhD; D Jeffrey Bingham, PhD; Professor Karen King, PhD; Margaret Starbird; Jack Wasserman, PhD; Carlo Pedretti, PhD; Henry Lincoln; Niven Sinclair; Andrew Sinclair; Umberto Eco; Rev Robin Griffith-Jones, PhD.
Investigating History: The Holy Grail
The History Channel (Kurtis Productions Ltd), 26 April 2004
Produced by Sharon Barrett, Presented by Bill Kurtis
Featured Michael Baigent; Professor Malcolm Barber; Dr Robert Eisenman; Dr Barbara Frale; uncredited contribution from an individual who claimed that Flying Saucers visited the village of Rennes-le-Château.
Behind The Mysteries: Unlocking Da Vinci's Code - The Full Story
(updated version of the ABC documentary above)
The National Geographic Channel (ABC News Productions), 19 December 2004
Produced by Jean Marie Condon and Yael Lavie, Presented and Written by Elizabeth Vargas
Featured Dan Brown; Ellen McBreen, PhD; Darrell L Bock, PhD; Father Richard P McBrien; Paul L Maier, PhD; Professor Elaine Pagels, PhD; Jeffrey Bingham, PhD; Professor Karen King, PhD; Margaret Starbird; Rev Robin Griffith-Jones; Jack Wasserman, PhD; Carlo Pedretti, PhD; Henry Lincoln; Umberto Eco; Helen Nicholson; Dr Niven Sinclair; Andrew Sinclair; uncredited contributions by various inhabitants from the village of Rennes-le-Château and the town of Saintes-Maries de la Mer.
Beyond The Da Vinci Code
The History Channel (Weller/Grossman Productions in association with Paulist Productions), 16 January 2005
Directed by Will Ehbrecht
Featured Richard Leigh; Dr Karen Ralls; Timothy Freke; Dan Burstein; Dr George Gorse; Margaret Starbird; Dr Deirdre Good; Jean-Luc Chaumeil; Andrew Soane.
The Real Da Vinci Code
Channel Four Television (Wildfire Television), 3 February 2005
Produced by Simon Raikes, Presented by Tony Robinson
Featured Professor Oliver Davies; Graham Phillips; Dr Juliette Wood; Richard Barber; Canon Jaime Sancho; Dr Thomas Asbridge; Michael Baigent; Jonathan Sumption, QC; Dr Gabriel Barkav; Dr Helen Nicholson; Robert Brydon; Dr Andrew Sinclair; Stuart Beattie; Robert Cooper; Jean-Luc Chaumeil; Arnaud de Sede; Father Thierry Vregil; Michel Rouge; Charles Nicholl; Professor Elaine Pagels, PhD; Dr Ann Graham Brock; Margaret Starbird, uncredited contributions by various inhabitants from the town of Saintes-Maries de la Mer (with archive footage of Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln, Pierre Plantard).
Conspiracies On Trial: The Da Vinci Code
The Discovery Channel (Outline Productions), 10 April 2005
Directed by Harry Beney
Featured Sister Wendy Beckett; Rabbi Jonathan Romain; Dr Edward Adams; Professor Paul Fouracre; Professor John Gordon; Jean-Luc Chaumeil; Michael Baigent (cameo appearance only).
Secrets To The Code
Dateline: NBC (NBC Universal, Inc), 13 April 2005
Broadcast Producer Elizabeth Cole, Presented by Stone Phillips
Featured Father Thomas Williams; Professor Bart D Ehrman, PhD; Professor Karen King, PhD; Professor Ben Witherington, III, PhD; Darrell L Bock, PhD; Professor Elaine Pagels, PhD; Margaret Starbird; Professor David Nolta, PhD; Richard Leigh; Henry Lincoln; Bill Putnam (with archive footage of Pierre Plantard from 1979).
The Grail Trail: In Pursuit of The Da Vinci Code
ITV (Granada), 26 September 2005
Produced and Directed by Matt Cain
Executive Producer: Gillian Greenwood
Narrated by Caroline Quentin
Featured psychologist Dr Raj Persaud; Leah Ganpatsingh, Philip Lindholm & Neil O'Neil; Lynn Picknett; Professor Ronald Hutton; Charles Nicholl; Father John Wauck; Nigel Bryant
Da Vinci Declassified
The Learning Channel (Beantown Productions, Discovery Communications, Inc), 3 November 2005
Executive Producers: David Carr; David Comtois
Producer, Frankie Glass
Featured Dr Steven Mizrach, Lynn Picknett, David Barrett, Henry Lincoln, Clive Prince, Jessica Teisch, Ph.D., Heather Sexton, Craig Dickens, Dan Duling, Sharan Newman, Professor Arthur Benjamin, John Edwin Wood, Bill Putnam, Peter Caine, Michel Rouge, Stuart Beattie, Robert Brydon
Revealed... The Da Vinci Code Myth
Channel Five (Weller/Grossman Productions; Love Productions), 29 November 2005
Director/Senior Editor Will Ehbrecht
Narrated by Mark Halliley
Featured Lynn Picknett, Lindsay Johns, Dr Deirdre Good, Dan Burstein, Margaret Starbird, Maxwell Hutchinson, Timothy Freke, Dr Karen Ralls, Richard Leigh, Jean-Luc Chaumeil, Brian Sewell
* This documentary was an updated version of Beyond The Da Vinci Code as shown by The History Channel on 16 January 2005 cited above, using much of the original footage.
The Templar Code (“Decoding the Past” series)
The History Channel (Windworks Media Group, Inc)
Shown in two parts (Crusade of Secrecy and The Quest For Templar Treasure) on 7 and 14 November, 2005
Directed by Geoffrey Nadeja
Narrated by Timothy Watson
Featured Sean Martin, George Smart, Dr Timothy Wallace-Murphy, Alan Butler, Marilyn Hopkins, Dr Karen Ralls
* Compendium of Templar fantasies with assorted historical facts thrown-in to try and make this documentary appear legitimate – Templars making a discovery in the Temple of Solomon, Templars worshipping a mysterious head, Templars and Rosslyn Chapel, Templars travelling to America, Templars and the Oak Island ‘Money Pit’ – it’s all there...
Legend Detectives: The Mystery of Rennes-le-Château
Discovery Channel (IPM TV Ltd), 9 December 2005
Produced and Directed by Michael Hutchinson
Featured Ronald Top, Tessa Dunlop, Massimo Polidoro, Tony Stockwell, Claire Corbu, Jean-Claude de Brou, Antoine Captier, Maitre André Salaün, Laurent Bucholtzer, André Douzet, Professor Robert Eisenman
Opus Dei & The Da Vinci Code
Channel Four Television (CTVC), 12 December 2005
Produced and Directed by Jeremy Jeffs
Written and Presented by Mark Dowd
Featured Bobby Boone, Silas Agbim, Lynn Frank, John Allen, Jack Valero, Paul Nagy, Benedicte Nagy, Adrienne Treleaven, Eileen Cole, Mgr Vladimir Felzmann, Mgr Flavio Capucci, Tammy DiNicola, Dianne DiNicola, Art Thelan, Brian Parker, Father Gerard Sheehan, Father Ian Dickie, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Kenneth L Woodward (with archive footage of Jose Maria Escriva)
Terra X: Geheimakte Sakrileg – Der Mythos von Rennes-le-Château
ZDF (ifage-Filmproduktion GmbH), 15 January 2006
Directed by Georg Graffe
Featured Jean-Luc Chaumeil; Henry Lincoln; Dr Jan Rüdiger; Antoine Captier; Claire Corbu; Jean-Jacques Bedu
The Secret Bible: Knights Templar - Warriors of God
National Geographic Channel (Morningstar Entertainment), 22 February 2006
Directed by Michael S. Ojdea
Executive Producers Gary Tarpinian, Paninee Theeranuntawat
Narrated by Enn Reitel
Featured Timothy Wallace-Murphy, Larissa Tracy, Jill N. Claster, James Wasserman, Dr Karen Ralls, Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones, Stuart Beattie
* Semi historical, semi pseudo-historical treatment of the subject matter – representing a fusion of opposites being given equal consideration in the pursuit of “historical conjecture”.
* Amongst its catalogue of shortcomings, the documentary claimed that “beneath the ancient temple [of Jerusalem] folklore says the Knights made one of the most remarkable discoveries of all time” – when in fact this allegation was only first made by Louis Charpentier in his 1966 book, The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral.
The Da Vinci Code – Bloodlines (“Digging for the Truth” series)
The History Channel (JWM Productions, LLC), 27 March 2006
Hosted by Josh Bernstein
Directed and Written by Brian Leckey
Featured Alice Jouve, Tuvia Fogel, Timothy Wallace-Murphy, Professor Jean-Jacques Cassiman, Daniel Perrier, Kent Dobson, Archbishop Malki Murad
* This documentary did a DNA testing on the remains of a 1,400 year-old Merovingian Queen (Aregund, the wife of Clothar I), which failed to produce any near-Eastern origin.
Da Vinci's Code ("Is It Real?" series)
National Geographic Television & Film Production, 24 April 2006
Written and Produced by Amy Doyle
Narrated by Will Lyman
Featuring Jean-Luc Chaumeil, Tammy DiNicola, Professor Martin Kemp, Richard Leigh, Sharan Newman, Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, Father William Stetson, Tracy Twyman
The Secret of the Priory of Sion
CBS News '60 Minutes' (CBS Worldwide Inc.), 30 April 2006
Presented by CBS Correspondent Ed Bradley
Produced By Jeanne Langley
Featured Henry Lincoln, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Claude Charlot, Bill Putnam, John Edwin Wood, Jean-Luc Chaumeil
* Dan Brown declined an invitation to appear on the documentary
The Da Vinci Code – The Greatest Story Ever Sold (‘Time Shift’ series)
BBC Four (BBC Bristol), 1 May 2006
Directed by Matthew Pelly; Producer Georgina Harvey
Narrated by Michael Pennington
Featured Richard Leigh; Jonathan Riley-Smith (Ecclesiastical Historian, Cambridge); David Aaronovitch (Columnist, The Guardian); Jack Valero (Opus Dei UK Director); Ruth Gledhill (Religion Correspondent, The Times); Evelyn Welch (Professor of Renaissance Studies, Queen Mary); James McConnachie; Robin Griffith-Jones (Master of the Temple, Temple Church, London); Brian Sewell (Art critic, The Evening Standard); Fred Piper (Professor of Mathematics, Royal Holloway); Sarah Dunant (Historical Novelist); Mike West (Chancellor, Lincoln Cathedral), with uncredited filmed contributions from a female Wiccan and assorted readers of The Da Vinci Code.
* Included extract footage from various past BBC documentaries (from the 1970s Chronicle documentaries, from the 1982 Omnibus, from the 1996 Timewatch documentary The History of a Mystery, from the February 2006 Culture Show, etc)
* Excellent documentary sending-up the modern day highly-fashionable beliefs in bogus secret societies, bogus hidden codes concealed in works of classical art and the bogus beliefs in the “descendants of Jesus Christ” which in turn have produced distorted and off-set interpretations of the Mediaeval literary creation The Holy Grail – all of which have crystallized due to the sudden and overwhelming popularity of Dan Brown’s recent novel The Da Vinci Code, itself inspired by books like The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail (1982).
* Quoting David Aaronovitch: “I am older than the Priory of Sion”, and “One of the things I think is interesting about this, is the way in which the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail have never, as far as I know, turned round to the rest of the world, and said, ‘It was a load of rubbish. Terribly sorry and all that. We are not going to give the money back cos we’ve spent it all and we did do quite a lot of work and we were hoaxed too, but actually, it’s all complete and utter tosh’.”
* Quoting Jonathan Riley-Smith: “What Holy Blood, Holy Grail, did, was to dismiss reputable evidence which didn’t go with its theories. Accept disreputable evidence and fill in the gaps where there was no evidence at all.”
Did Jesus Die?
BBC Four (Planet Wild), 1 May 2006
Written and Produced by Richard Denton
Narrated by Bernard Hill
Featured Elaine Pagels, Peter Stanford, John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredericksen, Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Tom Wright, Thierry LaCombe, Richard Andrews, James Tabor, Steve Mason, Abdullah Assiz Kashmiri
* A real shocker of a documentary giving historical credence to claims like Jesus Christ surviving the crucifixion and travelling to either Southern France or to Kashmir; with Thomas the Apostle travelling to India; the region of Rennes-le-Château was described as a “place of mysteries” and a “stronghold of the Templars”, who in turn “possibly discovered great treasures in Jerusalem which created the legend that they discovered the bones of Jesus Christ” – it was also stated quite funnily that “Bérenger Saunière claimed to have found ancient documents and took his secret to the grave with him when he died in 1917”.
* This documentary is possibly the worst of its kind since the broadcasting during the 1970s of the American television series “In Search Of...” (presented by Leonard Nimoy).
Revealed... The Man Behind The Da Vinci Code
Channel Five Television (Diverse Productions Ltd), 10 May 2006
Produced and Directed by Ian Bremner
Narrated by John Shrapnel
Featured Henry Lincoln, Professor Brian Ford, Sharan Newman, Dr Helen Nicholson, John Edwin Wood, Erling Haagensen, Dr Jim Bennett, Ed Danson, Peter Barber (with archive footage of Professor Christopher Cornford)
* Documentary primarily made for escapist entertainment rather than for historical elucidation – shameless vehicle for books like The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail and The Templars' Secret Island.....
Angels & Demons – The True Story
Channel Five Television (Hidden Treasures Production; Love Productions), 10 May 2006
Produced and Directed by Stephen Franklin
Narrated by Paul McGann
Featured Dr Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, Mark Irving, Simon Cox, Dan Burstein, George Lechner, Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lindsay Johns, James Wasserman, Dr Michael Barkun, Peter Sandford, Dr Amy Bernstein, Greg Tobin, Dr Antonio Sennis
Richard Hammond and The Holy Grail
BBC One (BBC), 29 May 2006
Produced and Directed by James Hayes
Presented by Richard Hammond
Featured Dr Tom Asbridge, Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones, Ian Robertson, Geoffrey Ashe, Richard Barber, Simon Cox, Stephen O’Shea, Karen McDermott, Father Gerald O’Collins; uncredited contributions from an American psychic in Rosslyn Chapel and various individuals at Glastonbury
· This poorly made superficial documentary got it right about the Grail being a medieval literary creation – and that Rosslyn Chapel had nothing to do with the Knights Templar – but the rest of the documentary was the product of sloppy third-rate research – presenting sensational claims found in pseudo historical books in a virtually uncritical manner – like the fact that the source of Abbé Bérenger Saunière’s wealth through the selling of masses was a “theory” on the same level as his “discovering a treasure”!
Prince Michael of Albany alias Michel Lafosse - a charlatan according to a Report commissioned in 1980.
Paul Smith
Belgian Michel Lafosse, who has been calling himself "HRH Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart, 7th Count of Albany", was first exposed as a fraud in 1980 – long before the publication of Laurence Gardner's book Bloodline of the Holy Grail in 1996.
A Private Report done by Jack S MacDonald to test the claims of Michel Lafosse was commissioned in 1980 – by a group of the Scottish Patriots which included Wendy Wood, A.J.Stewart, Nigel Tranter and others. Being told fairy stories by his Grandmother is what seems to have inspired Michel Lafosse into becoming the future "Prince Michael of Albany".
Below is the Transcript of Jack S MacDonald's Report, with a link to the photocopies of his original Report.
REPORT REGARDING EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIM OF
MICHAEL JAMES STEWART OR MICHAEL ROGER LAFOSSE
DATED 1 JUNE 1980
The Original
1.
The Claimant arrived in Scotland in August 1976. He approached several organisations and individuals, presenting papers which he alleged supported his contention that he was a direct descendant of Charles Edward Stewart.
The claim is based essentially on two sets of papers; the first set, it is maintained, is the result of secret researches in the archives of the Vatican State which are explained on letters and other documents and signed by Martino Giusti, Prefect. The other set of papers is from Belgium, the Claimant's birthplace. In addition, he says he has other papers in his Swiss bank.
This enquiry is founded only on the following documents which are in my possession:-
From Belgium:
(All papers marked* are "originals" signed in ink)
Photocopy 1.
Birth Certificate
Photocopy 2.
Extract Birth Certificate*
Photocopy 3.
Extract Marriage Certificate
Photocopy 4.
Statement Villa Bruxelles District 2 (2 pages)
From the Vatican State:
Photocopy 5.
Letter from Martino Giusti, Prefect, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, dated 11 December 1978.
Photocopy 6.
Statement dated 13 December 1978, signed by Martino Giusti, confirming the divorce of Charles Edward Stewart Princess Maximillian Stollberg Gedern and his subsequent secret marriage to Margareth Dee. Also shows the issue from this and later marriages down to the Claimant.
Photocopy 7.
Letter from Martino Giusti confirming descent of Margareth Dee from the Stewart line, dated 13 January 1979.
Photocopy 8*
Letter from Martino Giusti dated 23 March 1979.
Photocopy 9*
Letter from Martino Giusti dated 25 May 1979.
Photocopy 10*
Letter from Martino Giusti concerning the Pope's visit to Ireland, dated 26 July 1979.
Photocopy 11
Letter from Martino Giusti to Claimant's representative in Ireland sent c/o the Claimant - with previous letter (photocopy 10).
Photocopy 12*
Statement, undated but signed in ink and enclosed with previous letters (photocopy 10), (photocopy 11). 2 pages.
2.
Three Certificates.
Photocopy A. Papal Dispensation dated 1783
Photocopy B. Marriage Certificate dated 1783
Photocopy C. Baptism Certificate dated 1958.
THE BELGIAN PAPERS
With regard to the birth certificate (photocopy 1), I wrote a letter to the department in Watermael-Boisfort, Brussels, responsible for its issue, enclosing a photostat copy. The pertinent paragraph of my letter was:
"Would you kindly let me know if this is a true copy of your records or not, and IF NOT please let me have a copy of the certificate to which No.549 refers".
In return I received an extract birth certificate No.549 (Photo.3)
There are several fundamental differences between the information given on the two documents, the most important concern the names of the Claimant and his mother.
On the certificate presented by the Claimant, the names appear as Prince Michael James Stewart, Comte d’Albanie, and his mother as Princess Renee Juliana Stewart. On the extract birth certificate from Brussels, they appear as Michel Roger Lafosse and Renee Julienne Dee.
In due course, and in the presence of witnesses A, B and myself, the Claimant was asked to justify the apparent differences in the documents, and in reply he maintained that there existed two birth certificates with the reference No. 549, one issued at birth without titles and one issued at age 18 with titles. The reason being that in Belgium one does not legally accede to titles until reaching majority. Furthermore, as his descent from the Stewarts was through his mother's side he would naturally be represented by his father's name, Lafosse, on the earlier birth certificate.
He was asked to note the inference in my letter to Belgium, which asked for a true copy of the certificate referring to 549 if the photocopy enclosed was not a true copy. As they had sent me a different document, it therefore implied that the certificate which the Claimant had presented was not a true copy. The Claimant considered that the Belgian authorities had made a mistake.
On 29 February 1980 I sent a follow-up letter to the same department (photo.14). The relevant passage in this was:
"...the document I received from you was for Michel Roger Lafosse. This person is now claiming the existence of two birth certificates bearing the number 549, one for Michel Roger
3.
Lafosse and one for Michael James Stewart. Can you confirm the existence of two certificates, or is the one for Michael James Stewart a forgery?"
The communication received in reply (photo.15), was signed for the Mayor of Watermael-Boitsfort. "In reply to your favour received on 4 March 1980, this is to certify that, as you supposed, the birth certificate for Prince Michael James Stewart is a forgery."
* * * * * * *
The Claimant has stated both orally and in writing that, on 21 April 1976, in the church of St Lambert in Brussels, he went through a ceremony arranged by the Protestant and Catholic Churches attended by several European Royal Families. This ceremony he called his "Dynastic Entry".
In August 1979 witness A phoned the Claimant and asked him to produce certain papers. (Transcript of this conversation photo 16). The papers requested were:
1.
The documents on which his Dynastic Entry was registered in the Brussels archives.
2.
Papers to prove that this ceremony took place.
3.
Copies of every document held in the Swiss bank.
As at May 20 1980 none of these documents have been produced by the Claimant.
On March 16 1980 I wrote to the Church of St Lambert, Brussels. (Photo 17). The relevant passage of the letter was:
"Mr Lafosse tells us that the Vatican and the Protestant churches together organised a ceremony for him in your church on April 21, 1976. This ceremony was called his "Dynastic Entry" and was attended by many important people including representatives of several European Royal Families. Would you please inform me if this event truly took place or not?..."
The reply to this was written and signed on the margin of my letter, beside the relevant paragraph: "Dear sir, Not in our Church!" There was also a card written and signed by the same hand. (Photo 18). "Excuse sir, but I have not the practice in English correspondence. The answer is right."
* * * * * * * *
In June 1979 the Claimant received a document in the form of a two-page statement from L'Officier de l'Etat Civil de la Ville de Bruxelles (photo 4), purporting to show that his father was also in line of descent from the house of Stewart.
4.
In April 1980 I wrote to the Officier de l'Etat Civil, enclosing photocopies of the document and received in reply, the letter as shown in photocopy 19. The following is a translated extract:
"Referring to your letter in which you ask me to confirm the authority of a document concerning Mr Michael Lafosse, I have the honour to advise you that this document is false."
"...being given these facts I am passing your letter, also the photocopy of the document to the king's prosecutor for possible proceedings."
* * * * * * *
THE VATICAN PAPERS
There are ten documents in my possession which are alleged by the Claimant to have been sent by the Vatican. Four of these are "originals" signed Martino Giusti in ink or biro.
These "originals" are produced on inferior quality plain paper without watermarks, the coat of arms of the Vatican is printed in black ink and there are no reference numbers. It must be stated at this point that Msgr Martino Giusti is indeed the Prefect in charge of the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.
Msgr Grady, the Vicar General of Edinburgh, in a conversation with witness C and myself, stated emphatically that these letters were forgeries for the following reasons:
1.
The difference in paper quality.
2.
The lack of any watermark which is always present in genuine Vatican letters.
3.
The abysmal English grammar which would not be permitted to be sent from what is, in effect, a centre of diplomatic influence.
4.
The coat of arms is always printed in blue ink.
Witness A wrote to the Archivio Segreto in 1979 and was replied to on heavy quality paper, strongly watermarked and with the coat of arms printed in blue ink. In my possession I have a copy of a letter sent by Msgr Giusti to Mr E H Stewart-Hill of New York (photo.21). On both these letters there is a reference number and the English is impeccable. On E Stewart-Hill's letter Msgr Giusti says:
"...I can state quite categorically that these letters were not sent from this office and that the signature they bear is not mine".
In July 1979 the Claimant gave into my possession two letters from Martino Giusti, one a photocopy and one an "original" signed in ink, also a two page report likewise signed in ink and depicting the basis for the Claimant's titles. (Photocopies 10, 11 and 12).
5.
One of these letters was addressed to the Claimant's representative in Ireland at that time, and he is referred to as "Witness D".
These papers contain more grammatical errors and on the "originals", clearly discernible underneath the ink signatures, can be seen traces of pencil marks following the line of the ink. Here one must ask – for what reason would someone write his name in pencil and then write it again in ink over the top?
There is an added significance to these papers as they make direct reference to the Pope's visit to Ireland, and express the Pontiff's wish to be met on Irish soil by the Claimant. It was on seeing this that I called on Msgr Grady, the Vicar General of Edinburgh who examined the papers and in the presence of witness C and myself, phoned a "high-ranking" representative of the Vatican State who was staying in London and explained the situation to him.
Meanwhile, in Ireland, witness D approached the Papal Nuncio with the letter containing the Pope's "expressed wish" to meet the Claimant. The Papal Nuncio's reaction was to inform witness D that the letter was a forgery.
Another point regarding the Vatican papers is worth mentioning. It concerns the signature of Martino Giusti on the letters (photo.5) and the second page of the statement (photo.6). If one signature is superimposed over the other with a light shining from the back, e.g. held against a window – it will be seen that they fit each other precisely. Trials with friends with names of a similar length showed that, without tracing, it would require an extraordinary coincidence to achieve this result. In fact, none of my friends came anywhere near doing so.
The three certificates (a), (b) and (c) are crudely presented using, for the most part, a Gothic or Old English typeface, produced in a modern typefoundry and which is known under various names depending upon which company is responsible for producing it. The characters are uniformly precise although the alignment in "papal Dispensatio" on (a) and "Michael James Stewart" on (b) shows they have been "set" by an amateur. Compare the capital M for example in the word "Magnae" in (a) with the M's in "Most" in (b) and "Michael" in (c). They are exactly the same apart from the type-size. They do not show the slight variations which would be apparent if they had been produced by different typefounders.
We are therefore asked to believe that the Vatican in 1783 produced two certificates using type from the same typefounder as the Church of St Lamberts in Brussels (Protestant) used in 1956 for a baptism certificate.
6.
Father Edwards, who is a historian of the Jesuits, with a special interest in the history of the House of Stewart and a Latin scholar, has stated that the Latin in (a) is not of the right period. We must also ask why is (b) written in English? In any case it would be expected that one-off documents concerning a Papal Dispensation or secret marriage of a royal couple would have been hand lettered.
The view has been expressed by some of the Claimant's supporters, that despite the fact of forged documents, his claim may still be genuine. In fairness to this point of view I will quote from a letter encapsulating their arguments.
"The young gentleman – Michael James – is disappointing, and his dishonesties and intrigues are indefensible. However, it may be that knowing that certain people are in the position to advance his claims – and are unwilling to do so openly – that he made it appear that those persons were, in fact, advancing his claims. There are those who will say that certain papers are forgeries; in the strictest sense this is probably true. However, if it is a case of a young man having incontestable truths at hand, truths that others will not vouchsafe with paper warrants, he may well feel obliged to issue his own paper warrants, making them appear as if they had come from some respected authority. Therefore the real question is, if the papers, wherever they emanated from, contain incontestable truths – are they really forgeries?
"I am amazed that despite the enormity of the claim, and therefore the enormity of the fraud, nobody has seen fit to take legal action against the young gentleman. The Vatican, the Court of St James, the Lion Court of Scotland, and the Court of the House of Orange all seem to have a case if the young gentleman is a false claimant; yet none has seen fit to act against him, this despite the fact that he has been quite open in his activities."
There is some logic in this argument, however, we now know that the Belgian State (photo.19) have threatened legal action and in fact the police have already visited the Claimant's mother in this respect.* (see footnote). Also Martino Giusti has implied action by "higher authorities".
* Footnote. On 10 May 1980 the Claimant phoned me to ask if I had written to the Belgian State regarding his papers. On replying that I had, he became very angry and said that the police had been to see his mother and she was very upset. He told me I had no right to do such a thing and threatened me with court action. I replied that he had no right to distribute forged literature and surely he was aware that his documents would have to be verified. He reiterated his intention to prosecute and rang off. As yet there has been no solicitor's letter.
7.
In October 1979 I discussed with the Claimant the concern which was felt by some of his friends regarding the validity of his documents. We agreed to send a letter written and signed by him to Marino Giusti which would be sent c/o my address and posted in my presence. (photo.23).
This was executed on November 2 1979, although I must admit to losing sight of the envelope during the walk from my house to the postbox.
When one remembers the high regard and even deferential terms with which Martino Giusti had allegedly written to the Claimant in the past it must be considered remarkable that to this letter Msgr Giusti did not reply at all.
The following January the Claimant, together with witness E and myself again discussed the dilemma. We made careful and specific arrangements to repeat the exercise. The Claimant was to write a covering note to be included with the original letter and phone me to collect them from him at his place of work. I was to seal the letters in a registered envelope and post the package personally.
Approximately two weeks later I phoned the Claimant to find out why he had not yet complied with the arrangement. He replied that he had already sent the letter.
This total disregard for an arrangement which was evolved as much to protect the Claimant's credibility as to instil confidence in his supporters raised more serious doubts as to his honesty. There was no question of a misunderstanding. He has supplied me with a certificate of posting (photo.20) which is genuine, but of course this only proves that an envelope was sent. There has been no reply from the Vatican to this letter either.
The Claimant would have us believe that this is the first time the Vatican have not replied to him, and it may be asked why another forged letter was not produced to fill the gap. In this context it should be remembered that anything other than a letter on official Vatican notepaper with watermark would not have been acceptable.
* * * * * * * *
It must be agreed from available evidence that all the Claimant's documents used as a basis for this report are forgeries. Perhaps good enough to be accepted at face value, as did many of us at first, but not convincing when subjected to close scrutiny.
The question now posed is:-
Was the Claimant aware of, or indeed responsible for these forgeries?
8.
That he was aware of the forged birth certificate was indicated on the occasion when he made a deliberate attempt to explain the first denial of the Belgian State (photo.13) by the lie regarding the existence of two birth certificates.
With regard to direct responsibility, please refer to photocopy 22, which is a typed letter from the Claimant addressed to my family. It is dated 14 December 1978 immediately under the signature which is in biro. Observe the triangular flourish underneath the M in Michael and compare it to the one on the signature of Armand Deseager on page 2 of photocopy 18. This M can also be compared to the M in Martino Giusti's alleged signature on photocopy 9.
The most convincing point, however, concerns the highly individual method of inserting punctuation marks. Note the position of full stops and commas in the letter typed by the Claimant and compare this to the typing on the alleged Vatican letters or the Belgian papers. Also compare these to the two genuine letters from Martino Giusti to E Stewart-Hill of New York and myself (photos. 21/25) which place the punctuation marks normally.
Clearly the personal letter to my family, the Vatican papers and Belgian documents were all typed by the same person.
Finally I turn to the question of the claim of Michael Roger Lafosse to direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart, for although the Claimant's papers, both from the Belgian State and from the Vatican are seen to be and have been stated by both authorities to be false, there has as yet been no categorical denial from the Vatican (the alleged source of the information upon which the claim is based) that the claim itself is false.
On April 18 1980 I wrote to Msgr Giusti at the Archivio Segreto for clarification pn this point (photo.24). The following extract is pertinent:-
"...there still remains some ambiguity; for although we are of the opinion that the documents are forgeries, you do not state this categorically in your letters, neither do you deny the existence of any evidence in the Secret Archives which would support Mr Stewart's claim. The unfortunate result of this is that Mr Stewart and his supporters, as an excuse, claim that the Vatican are not at liberty to divulge information concerning this matter, except to Mr Stewart himself, and that the ambiguities in the letters from yourself are concerned with "political diplomacy". It is also pointed out that no action has been taken against Mr Stewart for the unauthorised use of
9.
your letterhead and the forging of your signature if, in fact, this is the case.
On 30 May I received a reply from Msgr Giusti dated 22 May 1980. (photo.25).
The characteristics of this document are:
1. Large clear watermark in the form of the Papal coat of arms.
2. Blue coat of arms at top lefthand corner.
3. Heavy bond paper.
4. Impeccable English grammar and sophisticated construction of sentences.
The pertinent passage reads:
"For your clarification I wish to specify that Mr Stewart has managed to duplicate by photocopy the letterhead and stationery of this archive. He forged my signature, copying it from my letter of denial that I sent him in 1978 in response to his request as to whether there existed in the Vatican, documents testifying to his presumed princely titles.
"I add in closing – and I think this will please you – that I have already notified higher authorities of the behaviour of the aforementioned Mr Stewart."
CONCLUSION
1.The Claimant known as Michael James Stewart, also Michel Roger Lafosse is responsible for producing and distributing forged documents which purport to show his direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart. This is demonstrated by the letters from the Belgian State and the Vatican State declaring certain papers as false. That the Claimant is responsible for these forgeries is conclusively proved by the evidence regarding the unique punctuation system in all papers including a letter signed by him.
2.There is no foundation to his claim of direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart. This is conclusively proved by the receipt of a letter from Msgr Martino Giusti, Prefect of the Secret Archives of the Vatican (photocopy 25) which denies any evidence of such claims.
This report must therefore find that the Claimant is a forger and a fraud.
Jack S MacDonald (signed)
1 June 1980
priory-of-sion.com
CHILDREN OF THE HOLY BLOOD AND THE HOLY GRAIL
Paul Smith
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail has a lot to answer for – having spawned a whole plethora of "non-fiction" titles that are nothing but good examples of pseudo-history – with the various theories not being based upon historical evidence but rather upon desired beliefs. The Bibliography below listing the English-Language Titles on the Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Château is not accurate nor is it exhaustive – but the ONE AND ONLY book that stands out from the list as being historically reliable and based upon documented evidence is Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood's The Treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Mystery Solved – recently republished as a paperback in revised and updated form.
Those titles not having any direct relation to the Priory of Sion and to Rennes-le-Château – ie, those authored by David Icke, Timothy Wallace-Murphy, Robert Lomas, etc – still nevertheless bear the similar process of thought and theory-construction that is present in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail – bearing the usual necessary Leaps of Faith and that well-known trademark of omitting historical facts that contradict the respective theories that fit the respective desired beliefs.
Books inspired by the publication of Dan Brown's 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code are given in a seperate Bibliography below this one here.
Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982)
* 1983 US version entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail
* 1983 French version entitled L'énigme Sacrée
The first book to make use of the "Jesus Bloodline theory" as found in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was the 1980 novel The Dreamer of the Vine – a novel about Nostradamus by Liz Greene (who is Richard Leigh's sister). The first thing Henry Lincoln ever had published about Rennes-le-Château was his essay in the BBC publication Chronicle – essays from ten years of television archaeology, edited by Ray Sutcliffe (1978) – entitled "The Lost Treasure of Jerusalem...?" the essay was a potted version of Gérard de Sède's book Le Trésor Maudit de Rennes-le-Château. During the same year George Sims had his thriller, Rex Mundi published which contained a chapter on Rennes-le-Château.
PRIORY OF SION
ESSENTIAL BOOKS
Factually reliable books on the Priory of Sion – the organisation lying at the very heart of Dan Brown’s best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code (which the author maintains "exists") – are listed below: providing the accurate historical facts to this subject matter.
Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood
The Treasure of Rennes-le-Château - A Mystery Solved
Sutton Publishing Limited, revised paperback edition July 2005
Jean-Luc Chaumeil
Rennes-le-Château – Gisors – Le Testament du Prieuré de Sion (Le Crépuscule d’une Ténébreuse Affaire)
Pégase, 2006
Jean-Jacques Bedu
Les sources secrètes du Da Vinci Code
Éditions du Rocher, 2005
Mario Arturo Iannaccone (Preface by Massimo Introvigne)
Rennes-le-Château una decifrazione – La genesi occulta del mito
Sugarco Edizioni, 2004
Massimo Introvigne
Gli Illuminati e il Priorato di Sion
Piemme, Milano 2005
Marie-France Etchegoin, Frédéric Lenoir
Code Da Vince: L'Enquête
Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 2004
Bernardo Sanchez Da Motta
Do Enigma de Rennes-le-Château ao Priorado de Siao - Historia de um Mito Moderno
Esquilo, 2005
The version of the "Priory of Sion" involving Godfrey de Bouillon, the Knights Templars and the Merovingians was a figment of Pierre Plantard’s imagination dating from the early 1960s when he first met Gérard de Sède and began collaborating with him on the Gisors story, that was first begun by Roger Lhomoy (Lhomoy was Gérard de Sède’s pig-farmer at the time). This romantic fabrication was concocted by Plantard at that time in order to make money and nothing else – no "hidden esoteric secrets" were involved. The Rennes-le-Château "connection" was introduced sometime later.
The real Priory of Sion was formed in 1956, and it terminated during the same year. It was named after the Col du Mont Sion located outside the town of Annemasse where Plantard lived during the 1950s. It was an organisation devoted to the promotion of Low-Cost Housing, attacking the property developers of Annemasse and supporting the local opposition candidate to the local Government authority as outlined in the pages of its journal, Circuit.
Every French group, club and organisation must register itself with the French Authorities to comply with the 1901 French Law of Associations, and Pierre Plantard and André Bonhomme were joint signatories to the 1956 Priory of Sion Registration Documents and Statutes that were deposited on 7 May 1956 at the Sub Prefecture of St Julien-en-Genevois.
Paul Smith
Robin Crookshank Hilton and Timothy Carmain - Updated
Revised and Updated 13 May 2006
Paul Smith
Pierre Plantard has been totally discredited and demystified in France – where he's regarded as being a proven lifelong confidence trickster who had a criminal record – his most successful period lasted for nearly two decades until the mid-1980s – and when he tried to make a comeback in 1989 with a different version of his myth of the "Priory of Sion" he was completely ignored. He has been regarded as a joke of the past in France for a long time. This information alone is completely new to many people.
Despite all of this, there are those who continually idolise Pierre Plantard and who seriously believe there was something to his myth of the "Priory of Sion" – one of the leading promoters of the Plantard memory is one Robin Crookshank Hilton, a quasi-pagan who is bent on researching "esoteric secrets" who was once an editor of Phenomena magazine, a publication devoted to New Age Mysticism and Pseudo-History, today existing merely as a virtual internet magazine, its Senior Editor being David V. Barrett with Crookshank Hilton maintaining an Editorial position.
Through the Phenomena/cinescape website Robin Crookshank Hilton has been active presenting bogus letters alleging that Plantard was still alive after the year 2000 (providing her routine disclaimers), and and at one time was also active selling copies of the Dossiers Secrets version of Plantard’s 1960s myth of the "Priory of Sion" on her MemoryMap website (currently inactive).
So who is Robin Crookshank Hilton? Apart from being an esoteric New Age hippy-dippy believer in "hidden mysteries" and "esoteric secrets" claiming to communicate with the spirits of famous dead people (like alchemists) through the technique of "Matrix Navigation" (a form of "remote viewing"), she is also part of a family involved in the Music Business (H20 Enterprises Ltd), as well as living a double-life involving mainstream politics whereby she became elected as a Conservative Councillor for the Village Ward in Southwark, London on 4 May 2006 (held in overall power by the Labour Party).
In December 2003 we received an e-mail from an individual claiming to have known Robin Crookshank Hilton during the early 1980s – quote: "I knew Stella back in the early eightys when she was hanging out with James Wasserman and his scoundrals who took over the OTO, ie Breeze, Gernan et all. Back then she was claiming to be a High Priestess Gardinarian Witch." [the reference to "Stella" in the quote being to "Stella Maris" – the pseudonym used by Robin Crookshank Hilton when posting messages to Internet Discussion Lists until 11 April 2002, when her real identity became known].
Much more recently, another individual sent us more allegations about Robin Crookshank Hilton (24 July 2004) – involving Simon Cox, the original Editor of Phenomena magazine before resigning shortly afterwards to write his book, Cracking The Da Vinci Code. This message alleged how Robin Crookshank Hilton had convinced herself that Dan Brown had based the character of "Sophie Neveu" in his novel The Da Vinci Code upon her, and how she believed that Dan Brown had "stolen her ideas" from various Internet Discussion Lists – first stealing her material and then basing the character of "Sophie Neveu" upon her. The message continued by referring to how Robin Crookshank Hilton had tried to contact Dan Brown because she wanted to give him advice for the forthcoming film directed by Ron Howard – and it was at this point that she fell out with Simon Cox – believing he was "thwarting" her desired involvement in the film. The message ended by referring to Robin Crookshank Hilton's "decades ago remarks how she thought she was the incarnation of Isis".
Robin Crookshank Hilton disputes the validity of the content of these messages – and since these events occurred either before she started posting messages to Internet Discussion Lists or they related to incidents that weren't mentioned on the Discussion Lists – the fact remains that Robin Crookshank Hilton is a true believer in the esoteric world and in the paranormal, nurturing whatever pseudo-historical conjectures anyone can produce that have an alternative historical nature to them and which are rejected by mainstream scholars. And this was how her interest in Pierre Plantard and his fictitious "Priory of Sion" developed in the first place.
Robin Crookshank Hilton's internet messages containing her accounts of how she communicated with the spirit of Nicolas Flamel through the technique of "remote viewing" have recently disappeared, but copies of them exist and they can be read here.
Robin Crookshank Hilton was also at one time (in 1997) a supporter of the impostor Michael Lafosse, a Belgian believing himself to be "Prince Michael of Albany" the direct descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie and legitimate claimant to the Throne of the Stuart Line – her messages (also written under the pseudonym of "Stella Maris") from the now-defunct Entropic Forum (called "Brainstorming Sessions") can be read here. It should also be pointed out that Robin Crookshank Hilton also claimed to be descended from the Stuart Line.
Timothy Carmain
Hidden esoteric agenda enshrined within pseudo-intellect
Robin Crookshank Hilton does not operate alone – her activities include an association with one Timothy Carmain – a working class American Citizen who promotes himself as having Royal French blood in his veins – currently claiming to be descended from "a third son of Jean de Foix, created Comte de Carmain in 1481" (as of 26 August 2005) – but Timothy Carmain cannot offer any genealogical evidence to substantiate his claims – at one stage all he managed to do was to provide a stock genealogy from Jean de Foix to the grandson of Jean de Foix – but not to himself to the present day – and then to blandly claim that "most of his genealogy is already on the web and can be verified from published genealogical references."
More recently (on 26 April 2006) Carmain claimed that the evidence for his genealogical claims can be found in the 1712 Caille edition of Pere Anselme de Sainte-Marie's Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne (which presumably provides data relating to the descendants of Jean de Foix) – and that the remainder was compiled in his great-grandfather's time – this presumably being where Carmain attempts to merge his genealogical background to that of Jean de Foix – but Carmain still needs to provide that missing link where the two family bloodlines join together – and then to have that claim endorsed by academic scholars.
Carmain has tried to establish his claims on http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty where they have been rejected by academics like Francois Velde, Guy Stair Sainty and Christopher Buyers – what's more, Carmain has never visited France and does not understand the French Language. Also, Carmain has also been involved – until recently – in supporting fake royal pretenders like the Vietnamese "Prince" Buu Chanh. Timothy Carmain is described as "Genealogical Scholar of the Southeast Asian Imperial and Royal Houses" by The International Academy For the Promotion of Historical Studies.
Timothy Carmain as "Mariner"
Tries to hide his links with Pagans and Witches
But what settles Carmain's position is that like Robin Crookshank Hilton, he too is a quasi-pagan bent on researching "esoteric secrets" – believing he has an association with the Gods of Ancient Greece and that Christianity is based upon the Greek myth of Iason or Esus. Under the guise of "Mariner", Carmain is the organizer for the Los Angeles/Hollywood Pagans and Witches Meetup group. Since the appearance of this article Carmain has altered the details relating to himself on the witches-meetup webpage – removing his photographs and replacing the name "pommerade" (which he used on several internet discussion forums for several years) with "mariner70".
Timothy Carmain constantly signs himself as "Timothy de Carmain-Perillos" but there is no such French Title, and the closest one to it is the Spanish Title Vicomte de Perellós, bestowed upon the current holder Don Iñigo de Arróspide y Valera by the King of Spain in 1999.
This has not prevented Timothy Carmain from devising a Coat-of-Arms depicting his Fantasy Title:
Marquis Timoléon de Carmain-Périllos
Even if this Coat-of-Arms has been granted to Timothy Carmain by concession of HRH Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganca, it does not bear the endorsement of any academic scholar, and the Duke of Braganca's past associations have been slightly suspect in nature to say the very least – only having links with a bogus "Prince of Jaffna" (whose "Chancellor" is – or was – Timothy Carmain!).
Both Robin Crookshank Hilton and Timothy Carmain claim to be Priory of Sion "critics" – except that their scepticism does not incorporate Pierre Plantard’s anti-semitism, confidence trickery and criminal convictions – and Carmain even believes in portions of the Priory of Sion myths (eg, the fantasy that the Abbé Pichon manufactured Merovingian genealogies for Napoleon Bonaparte – despite the lack of evidence and that this was made-up by Plantard in the first place, who could not justify anything about this during his lifetime).
Robin Crookshank Hilton is most forthright in her rejection of Plantard’s anti-semitism and criminal convictions – despite the evidence obtained from the Prefectures of Police in Paris and St Julien-en-Genevois about these things. Anyone who does not share her rejections of this evidence is simply labelled a "nutcase" by her. In the recent past, Robin Crookshank Hilton has simply rejected the evidence from the Prefectures of Police as "forgeries". And only recently Robin Crookshank Hilton has repeated her bizarre allegation that "nobody has independently verified Plantard's criminal convictions" – the evidence relating to Plantard's past criminal record have recently been independently verified by researchers working for recent documentaries, who conducted on-the-spot researches in Paris and in St Julien-en-Genevois, France.
So what does this all add up to?
Just that both Timothy Carmain and Robin Crookshank Hilton are two mystery buffs holding strong beliefs in "esoteric secrets and hidden mysteries" hoping to become themselves an integral part of the fantasy world which they seriously believe exists – and just how they see themselves in this respect – whether they pursue their activities for real or for fun – only they know: but the myth of the "Priory of Sion" continues to attract a whole manner of various people who for various reasons want to exploit what Plantard began – and the temptation to form a New Age Hippy-Dippy version of the Plantard myth (here called MemoryMap) – being sanitised of Plantard’s anti-semitism, confidence trickeries and criminal convictions (these facts naturally serve as an obstacle) – is just too much of a temptation for those with weak powers of common sense reasoning.....
Michael Baigent Profile
and his book The Jesus Papers reviewed
Paul Smith
Note: we are pleased to announce that Michael Baigent, someone who has made a lot of money from writing silly books about the "Priory of Sion" – and someone with an incomplete knowledge of Judaism and Christianity – does not endorse the contents of this webpage!
Of the three authors who co-wrote the pseudo-historical masterpiece The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Michael Baigent may be considered as being the main one who contributed the most towards the "Jesus-Bloodline" theory – his obsession with the Jewish Line of David was evident from what he contributed to the recently screened satellite documentary on the History Channel Investigating History: The Holy Grail (26 April 2004).
Michael Baigent's involvement in this subject matter seems to have begun during the late 1970s when he contributed research for the BBC 2 Chronicle documentary In The Shadow of the Templars broadcast on 27 November 1979. The Producer Roy Davies, who wanted a different ending to his documentary, categorically rejected his proposed "solution" to the activities of the Abbé Bérenger Saunière, which involved his theory of the "Jesus-Bloodline" and the survival of the Line of David in the region of Rennes-le-Château. Between the late 1970s and 1982 when The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was originally published, Baigent took his theory 'on the road' giving Talks and Lectures in various locations – on 31 January 1981 he addressed the membership of the Pendragon Society (of which he was once a member) at its Annual General Meeting held in Bristol University (the Pendragon Society was founded in 1959 and pursues Arthurian Studies: history and archaeology, legend, myth and folklore, the Arts and popular culture). Even then Baigent's theories were not taken seriously – it was suggested by several people who listened to his various claims that because he had a Degree in Psychology he was pursuing some sort of "social experiment".
The superimposition of Baigent's "Jesus-Bloodline" theory over the Priory Documents and linking it with the person of Pierre Plantard has been, needless to say, highly damaging. There are no references in the Priory Documents to the New Testament, and Pierre Plantard – the perpetrator of the Priory of Sion hoax – never claimed to be descended from Jesus Christ (he merely claimed to be descended from the Merovingian King Dagobert II, and desired to be the newly restored King of France). Because of the enormous worldwide success of Baigent's 1982 book it is uncritically accepted by a lot of people today that the "Jesus Bloodline" theory and the Priory of Sion are one and the same thing. Such beliefs can only exist in the minds of those who haven't actually read the Priory Documents themselves.
Pierre Plantard first distanced himself from the "Jesus-Bloodline" theory in 1983 on a French radio interview, quoted by Philippe de Chèrisey in his 1983 article 'Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians' that appeared in Nostra Magazine – ‘Bizarre News’ N° 584, 1983. Then, later on during the late 1980s, Plantard modified and changed the mythological pedigree of his Priory of Sion, giving it a totally different history and repudiating the version found in the "Dossiers Secrets" that was accepted as "plausible history" by the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, and the following passage was written in Vaincre No. 3, September 1989, page 22 (a phantom publication edited by Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair, Plantard's son):
"We are now able to officially state that the PRIORY OF SION has no direct or indirect connection with the ORDER OF THE TEMPLE, and that all this fantastic succession of Grand-Masters that authors such as Philippe TOSCAN, Mathieu PAOLI, Henry LINCOLN, Michael BAIGENT, Richard LEIGH, etc. have attributed to it derive merely from people’s imaginations and the realm of fantasy" (in an article entitled Some Archives Of The ‘Priory Of Sion’ Discovered In Barcelona… by "Ursanne").
I met Michael Baigent in person at his Winchester Home in February 1993. I found him very hospitable, courteous to talk with, but still believing in the Priory of Sion, in Merovingian Bloodlines existing to the present day, and his Line of David obsession was evident. He cordially gave me the use of his photocopier, with which I could photocopy parts from his archives that I found interesting, and Baigent even later provided me with a photograph of Marie Denarnaud's receipt for Saunière's coffin – showing that Baigent himself obtained it from Pierre Plantard's archives (thus proving that there once existed a liaison between Plantard and Noel Corbu). But what really interested me from this meeting with Baigent was his vast archive relating to the evidence of Saunière's wealth originating from the selling of masses. There it was – in Baigent's own home – all the photocopied evidence – highly substantial in its volume – proof of the source of the priest's wealth – but that it was in the possession of somebody who did not know how to use it properly because they preferred to pursue non-sequiturs relating to pseudo-history. Marie Denarnaud's receipt, which Baigent gave me, has been used on this website as evidence that Saunière's coffin was not paid for by Marie Denarnaud until some 6 months after his death – the date is there plainly to see: 12 June 1917 – and not 12 January 1917 – a week before Saunière's death – as claimed in Baigent's book.
In 2004 Michael Baigent was interviewed by Italian Rennes-le-Château investigator Francesco Garufi, where he claimed that my website was "built on evidence originating from his archives" from our 1993 meeting, and that I could not be considered as an "expert" on this subject matter. Here it must be stated that this is a reference to Marie Denarnaud’s receipt of Saunière's coffin and to nothing else. I did not use anything else from Baigent's archive for the website apart from that – so the website cannot be regarded as "built on his archive". The pieces from Baigent's archive that I did photocopy in 1993 were extracts from René Descadeillas' Mythologie du trèsor de Rennes (showing that the authors were well aware of material that contradicted the claims found in their book) and a black and white copy of a painting of the Magdalene by David Teniers. That was all that I copied from Baigent's archives in 1993.
Francesco Garufi's interview with Michael Baigent appeared in the Italian magazine Gli enigmi di Rennes-le-Château that was a special supplement to the Italian magazine Hera dated February 2004. This was later reprinted in Francesco Garufi's book Rennes-le-Château: Un'inchiesta? (now out-of-print).
Here it is, from page 28:
Marie Denarnaud's receipt for Saunière's coffin appeared in the public domain long before it appeared on this website originating from Michael Baigent's archives. It was reproduced in 1985 in Captier and Corbu's book, L'Heritage de l'Abbé Saunière.
The popularity of Dan Brown's recent novel The Da Vinci Code has inspired several documentaries, one of which in particular featured Michael Baigent which put his theories to the critical test. Broadcast on 3 February 2005, Channel Four's The Real Da Vinci Code presenter Tony Robinson asked Michael Baigent the following question in relation to the claim that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and produced offspring:
Tony Robinson:
Do we have any evidence that there was a child?
Michael Baigent:
There's none whatsoever – that’s purely hypothesis on our part – but I think it's a plausible hypothesis - that the Holy Grail is the bloodline of David – and if Jesus and Mary Magdalene had been married and she was pregnant with this child – "yes, she would have carried the Grail to France" – and I think this is the way that we need to look at this material – Is it true? I don't know – Is it plausible? Yes.
Tony Robinson:
So the inspiration for 'The Da Vinci Code' and a whole Canon of secret Grail Hunts is no more than a Big Guess...
Michael Baigent remains undaunted by such criticisms and sticks to his guns. His 1982 book has recently been translated in Norway on the strength of the success of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code – and he has recently toured Norway with an "illustrated evidence" of the Priory of Sion and promoting yet again, his "Jesus-Bloodline" theory and trying to prove that the Abbé Saunière knew about this and that it could have been his "secret" – basing the latter allegation on Station XIV of the Cross in Saunière's church that depicts a Full Moon whilst Jesus' body is being "smuggled away from the tomb".
Baigent's "illustrated evidence" for the Priory of Sion merely consists of Charters that relate to the Abbey of Notre Dame de Mont Sion, a monastic order that ceased to exist during the 17th century, and which had no historical link with Plantard's Priory of Sion hoax. Station XIV of the Cross in Rennes-le-Château church is not that unique – Saunière obtained it from the Giscard Company in Toulouse who specialised in providing religious ornamentary for Churches – and the Stations of the Cross that exist in the Church in Rennes-le-Château can also be found in churches in Couiza and Rocamadour.
A copy of the Catalogue of the Company of Giscard of Toulouse has been discovered, and here is what the Company offered in terms of Stations of the Cross from this Catalogue:
Michael Baigent's claims and allegations stem not from historical evidence but from desired beliefs. The survival of the Line of David to the time of Jesus Christ is an impossibility, never mind its survival to the present day. The last Jewish King of the Line of David was dethroned in 586BC when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and took away the Jewish people to captivity. When they were liberated from Babylonian bondage by Persia and returned to Jerusalem the Jewish Monarchy was not restored. There was nobody then in existence to be the King of Judaea from the Line of David.
And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon (2 Kings 25: 7).
The Jesus Papers by Michael Baigent
Reviewed by E.P.Wijnants
First of all, Baigent doesn't deliver what he promises in his book.
The title and opening pages refer to a tantalizing document "containing incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was alive in the year A.D. 45." Such a document, verified by carbon dating and subjected to the scrutiny of the world's top archaeological experts, would deliver a devastating blow to the core belief of Christianity: that Jesus rose from the dead. This idea is dangled early then withdrawn, as Baigent explains that historical background is needed before considering such stunning news.
When reading the book cover to cover however, it becomes clear that Baigent in fact suggests there was (or is) an exoteric and esoteric (hidden meaning) to Christianity. Or as Baigent writes, "It is still more curious that the production of these books of Hermes began about the time of Jesus and paralleled the rise of Christianity." (The Jesus Papers, page 211)
To further underscore this point, the Jesus bloodline theory Baigent presents is similar to that proposed by Hermetist Robert Ambelain, founder of the "Église Gnostique Apostolique", and publicised in his earlier 1970 book Jesus or the Mortal Secret of the Knight Templars. Not unlike Ambelain, Baigent has Jesus go to Egypt with a new twist added – that Jewish Zealots who resisted Roman occupation seeking Jesus' execution as a traitor to their movement while Pontius Pilate "took steps to ensure that Jesus would survive." Jesus and wife according to The Jesus Papers travelled to Upper Egypt and taught mystical lore that inspired ancient Gnostic/Hermetic wisdom.
Also Bishop Clement of Alexandria, so Baigent assures, "knew of the Hermetic texts." Further Baigent argues about Jesus: "I suspect that he wouldn't have minded at all if people forgot him; what was more important to him was that people should not forget the way to the kingdom of heaven, a notion not restricted to Christianity and Judaism: "To be ignorant of the divine is the ultimate vice," proclaim the texts attributed to the Egyptian sage Hermes Trismegistus."
After the war in Judaea, and after the Jewish Temple of Onias was closed down, where did Jesus go? Baigent writes; "Again, indulging in pure speculation, I would think it possible that Jesus and his family travel to a place of safety well away from Egypt and Judaea."
This then is said to be Narbonne, "a major Roman trading port at the mouth of the Aude River in France, had a Jewish population in the region."
It seems "plausible" so Baigent argues, "that the Jewish community in the south of France was the source of a document stating Jesus's existence in A.D. 45, and next fell in the hands of the southern French Gnostic group, the Cathars." (The Jesus Papers, page 266.)
Maybe not content with a non-existant manuscript however, Baigent seems to fall back on a conspiracy theory, "in hints and third hand rumours has always been talk of the existence of some documents that are dangerous to the Vatican."
Pretty soon, the reader realizes that there probably won't be any "Jesus documents" — that this book is really a private credo, an intimate declaration of belief dressed up to be the religious bombshell of the millennium. But then the long-anticipated appearance of the documents comes (or does it?) near the end. Baigent meets with an unidentified antiquities dealer who shows him two pieces of parchment:
"Each was about eighteen inches long and nine inches high…. These were … the letters from Jesus to the Sanhedrin. They existed. I was silent as I fully enjoyed the moment."
Then he adds, "I wished above all that I might have a familiarity with ancient languages... It's like holding a treasure chest but not having the key to open it."
Earlier in the book, Baigent described himself as a devoted student of ancient history for many years, but here he can't even pick out Jesus' name nor does he have the dealer’s name, who is elusive and disappears from the story, after showing him what the parchment contained.
Finally on the second to last page of the book, comes the disclaimer: "It should be clear now that history is malleable: we have our facts, but we never have enough of them to be able to put our hands on our hearts and say; in all honesty; that we know for certain what happened."
More from E.P.Wijnants can be read on http://sociologyesoscience.com
http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/baigent.html
priory-of-sion.com
The Sion Revelation – The Opinions Do Not Fit The Facts
Paul Smith
The Sion Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince can more properly be called The Sion Mystification because the two authors are well-known mystery-buffs who love to manufacture far-fetched alternative versions of history, and have just produced another example in this, their latest book. In a nutshell, their argument is that Pierre Plantard could not be trusted, he was merely chosen to play the role of front man or figurehead for the Priory of Sion – an organisation that just happened to be a hoax and a cover for an ancient tradition – previously existing under the guise of the Rectified Scottish Rite, Martinism, Beneficient Knights of the Holy City, and even in the ultra-right wing 1930s French terrorist group, the Cagoule – all linked together by one common factor – synarchy – largely responsible for "the drive to forge the United States of Europe". The authors suggest that the origin for the idea of European political Unity came from Saint-Yves d’Alveydre – despite the fact that d’Alveydre never wrote about politics in his entire life. Also, the fact that synarchy existed more in the form of speculative theory than in actual reality and in different forms in different contexts is not explained to the reader, either.
Picknett and Prince claim that when the Priory of Sion was first formed in 1956 it was a "front for groups plotting Charles de Gaulle’s return to power" (and containing "coded messages") – or at least that’s what they would have us believe – without citing relevant passages from the 1956 issues of Circuit showing that the Priory of Sion was devoted to the backing of Monsieur Maitret the leader of the opposition group on the Annemasse town council in 1956 (as well as being the President of the Large Families Association). Not a single reference to this fact is made in their enormous 530-page book.
Picknett and Prince state that "it is emphatically not our job to defend Plantard" because "he was a downright ‘dodgy’ character" and "everything he said was a lie or half-truth" which does not ring true – the authors give Plantard the benefit of the doubt when he claimed he "knew" Georges Monti; that he was involved in "gold transfers to Switzerland"; and that his father was an "aristocrat" (based on an amendment to a Birth Certificate dating from 1972!) – all of which are classic ludicrous Plantard claims.
Picknett and Prince also chose to believe and to take seriously that important people were linked to Plantard’s 1940s wartime activities relating to the Alpha Galates – that Louis Le Fur, Camille Savoire, and Robert Amadou actually knew and met Pierre Plantard (Amadou did not claim he was a member of the Alpha Galates as reported by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh); and that even Hans Adolf von Moltke was a member of the Alpha Galates . Yet the authors continuously demonstrate that they are not in possession of all the known facts – take for example Maurice Lecomte-Moncharville (1864-1943) – they regard "his" articles in Vaincre with some importance – yet they could not have been written by Moncharville at all – firstly because he was a specialist dealing in International Law who never wrote about esoteric matters – and secondly because he wasn’t even living in France at the time when the various articles appeared that were attributed to him in the issues of Vaincre. Nor was Moncharville ever a "Count" – the word "Lecomte" was part of his surname.
The reason why Hans Adolf von Moltke was chosen by Plantard to be a "member of the Alpha Galates" was not because of his name but because of his status – German ambassador to Spain: and Plantard naturally supported the side of General Franco in the Spanish Civil War. Quoting from Vaincre Number 4, "… from the very first day of the Spanish Civil War our watchword was to support nationalism and to join forces with Franco". This was just another example of Pierre Plantard’s right-wing nature. Whoever would have been German ambassador to Spain at the time would automatically also have been a "member of the Alpha Galates" – it just happened to be Hans Adolf von Moltke.
The point was made in the Police Report on Pierre Plantard dated 8 February 1941: "In fact Plantard, who boasts of having links with numerous politicians, seems to be one of those dotty, pretentious young men who run more or less fictitious groups in an effort to look important and who are taking advantage of the present trend towards taking a greater interest in young people in order to attract the Government's attention." – a passage from File Ga P7 existing in the Paris Prefecture of Police that Picknett and Prince themselves actually quote but decided to ignore the relevance of.
Picknett and Prince claim that Les Dossiers Secrets d’Henri Lobineau was not a part of Pierre Plantard’s creations – an astonishing claim since the document contains additional material and arguments designed to supplement that already found in earlier Priory Documents – representing a natural progression in the Plantard/de Chèrisey mythmaking process. For example, Les Dossiers Secrets contains genealogies produced by the very same stencil-kit that produced the genealogies found in earlier documents, which actually bear Pierre Plantard’s signature.
The explanation for the creation of the Priory of Sion involving the Merovingians, the Crusades, Godfrey de Bouillon, dates from the early 1960s when Pierre Plantard first met Gérard de Sède and began collaborating with him on books – the whole genesis of the false Priory of Sion pedigree began as a money-making scheme – that Plantard failed to capitalise because Gérard de Sède refused to share the book royalties! Because Plantard failed to make any money does not preclude that it all started as a money-making scheme in the first place. Naturally, Picknett and Prince do not go into any great detail relating to the legal case involving Pierre Plantard and Gérard de Sède in relation to book royalties. Both Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey needed money during the early 1960s and writing books about Rennes-le-Château and devising the myth of the Priory of Sion was their strategy in obtaining that money.
The French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil possesses correspondence dating from the 1960s that Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chèrisey and Gérard de Sède wrote to each other (including the original envelopes) – providing details of their background activities, schemes and plans demonstrating what was happening at the time between them involving Rennes-le-Château and the Priory of Sion myth. These letters prove that these were the only individuals involved and that there was no "Grand Esoteric Masterplan" involving "Higher Authorities" whereby Plantard served only as a figurehead. Picknett and Prince’s Sion Revelation is a complete mistake.
Picknett and Prince – Lack of Integrity
Some of the content in The Sion Revelation calls into question the integrity of the two authors. For example, they give thanks to Geoffrey Basil Smith for providing them with a letter that he had received from Philippe de Chèrisey, yet it was only on 17 November 2005 that I received an e-mail from Geoffrey Basil Smith asking me, "please send copies of my old de cherisey letters to me ... mine have disappeared mysteriously". There is no reference to "theft" here like Picknett and Prince have wrongly imagined – Geoffrey Basil Smith told me during the late 1980s that he destroyed his Priory of Sion archive.
Another example is their statement that they had "spent considerable time, particularly in the mid-‘90s, mixing with many other researchers and enthusiasts, in both the United Kingdom and France, of all shades of opinion, including sceptics and Plantard opponents" – which could not have been that comprehensive – since they did not contact me (and I am only mentioned in their book several times), nor did they contact Jean-Luc Chaumeil (who is also mentioned in their book several times), nor did they contact Jean-Jacques Bedu (who isn’t even mentioned in their book) – and they certainly did not contact Judge Thierry Jean Pierre – which is why they do not know anything about the 1993 incident involving him and Pierre Plantard.
We can show the 1960s correspondence between Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chèrisey and Gérard de Sède; we can show the proof that Saunière obtained his wealth from the selling of masses; we can suggest to Picknett and Prince to contact Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre – but the resilient and versatile nature of the mystery-buff cannot be conquered – if there’s a mystery to be entertained than nothing can stop the process once it has started.
In The Sion Revelation, Picknett and Prince have absorbed all the damning negative evidence about Pierre Plantard only to make up excuses to produce a far-fetched version of alternative history to try and make the subject matter sound interesting. The authors promote themselves as ‘historical researchers engaging in a detective story’ – when in fact, there is no substantial difference between their ‘Giovanni’ (their ‘source’ on the Priory of Sion) and the ‘Michael’ of Timothy Wallace Murphy (the source relating to the Rex Deus claims). Both Parties are equally culpable in their respective reasoning and therefore both Parties are equally guilty of producing pseudo-history.
Pierre Plantard the Traditionalist Roman Catholic
Paul Smith
When the Priory of Sion was first formed in 1956 in the small French town of Annemasse close to the Swiss town of Geneva it bore the acronym CIRCUIT that stood for 'Chivalry of Catholic Rules and Institution of Independent Traditionalist Union' – the Statutes of the Priory of Sion resembled the earlier wartime Statutes of the Alpha Galates: a phantom quasi-occult, pro-Vichy association that Pierre Plantard formed in wartime France that was both anti-masonic and anti-semitic.
The 1956 version of the Priory of Sion terminated in the same year that it was formed and had nothing to do with the Crusades, Godfrey de Bouillon, Merovingians, the Knights Templar or with the village of Rennes-le-Château – all these things became added when Pierre Plantard formed a partnership with Gérard de Sède during the early 1960s and these elements represented a literary deal between the two people as part of a book-selling agenda.
Moving forward to 1967 and the creation of 'Les Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau' as compiled by Philippe Toscan du Plantier and deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale in France – what significance was there between Pope John XXIII and Jean Cocteau, the fictional Grand Master of the fictional Priory of Sion?
Interesting piece of mythmaking here by both Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chèrisey when creating 'Les Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau' and the mythological pedigree of the Priory of Sion in 1967. Between 1918 and 1963 the fictional Grand Master of the fictional Priory of Sion was Jean Cocteau – who also bore the title of Jean XXIII. The Pope between the years 1958 – 1963 was Cardinal Roncalli, who took the name of Pope John XXIII.
More interesting facts – the Fifth French Republic commenced in 1958 and Plantard believed that the Age of Aquarius also commenced in 1958.
Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962 – whereby the Jews were exonorated from having any blame for the death of Jesus Christ and the ceremony of the Mass in Latin was abolished.
Was there a connection between Pope John XXIII and the fictional Priory of Sion? Yes - one of resentment and bitterness – because Plantard and de Chèrisey did not link the name of Pope John XXIII with their Priory of Sion, but those of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre and the Abbé Georges de Nantes – both of which were virulently opposed to Vatican Two and both of which were excommunicated by the Vatican – Lefebvre was rumoured to having been a fictional Grand Master of the fictional Priory of Sion in the Priory Document 'Le Cercle d'Ulysse' (1977) and an article in 'Les Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau' claimed that Serge Roux was in fact the Abbé Georges de Nantes – the extreme Roman Catholic conservative priest called the head of the 'Catholic Counter-Reformation Movement of the Twentieth Century'.
Abbé Georges de Nantes Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre
So, this only demonstrates further what a Conservative Right Winger Pierre Plantard was during the 1960s and 1970s, long after his wartime Alpha Galates activities.
The insertion of the name of Jean Cocteau into the fictional Grand Masters List of the fictional Priory of Sion was Philippe de Chèrisey's suggestion, on account of his interest in surrealism and nothing else. But there was no "Surrealist significance" to the fictitious Priory of Sion from Plantard's position – the last mural to be executed by Cocteau was left unfinished, and it featured Godfrey de Bouillon – the fictitious founder of the fictitious Priory of Sion.
Most of the names found in the fictitious List of Priory of Sion Grand Masters originate from a document compiled by Raymond Bernard the former Grand Master of AMORC in France – and Plantard claimed to have communicated with the spirit of Godfrey de Bouillon in seances.
Footnote
Piers Compton once made the hilarious claim that Pope John XXIII was a "Rosicrucian" (in his 1981 book The Broken Cross: Hidden Hand In The Vatican). It just so happens that Pope John XXIII was responsible for starting Vatican Council Two during the early 1960s which introduced a revised version of Catholicism that many Traditionalist Catholics loathed – the dropping of Latin during the ceremony of the Mass was just one of the measures that became introduced.
Calling Pope John XXIII a "Rosicrucian" was just Piers Compton's way of bad-mouthing the Pope. Compton did not know anything at all about Rosicrucianism. Compton was in fact a former Catholic priest and the Literary Editor of the Catholic Weekly 'The Universe' for 14 years.
Equally the same thing can be said about Malachi Martin when he claimed there was "Satanism" going on in the Vatican (in his 1991 book The Keys of This Blood) – this was just a case of another Catholic disliking the Papacy for another reason: the political stance some Popes were taking – all too much for those Catholics who disagreed – and rhetorical statements like "Luciferan conspiracy" soon became banded about.
Pope John XXIII was not a "Rosicrucian" and there is no "Satanism" going on in the Vatican. This is just a lot of hot air coming from the Roman Catholic critics of the Papacy.
priory-of-sion.com
THE MESSAGE OF A SACRED ENIGMA -
TALES, LEGENDS AND MYTHS OF RENNES-LE-CHATEAU
Being an extract from Jean-Luc Chaumeil’s book,
THE TABLE OF ISIS, Part 2, THE TEMPLARS OF THE APOCALYPSE (1994).
On the eve of the two hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, the good people of France watching their television sets must have thought they were dreaming when they watched and listened to the virtually science fiction style legend of the life of a priest in the South of France. The story combined sex, death and buried treasure; unfortunately, alas, the actors and script formed a whole that was incongruous and rather poor in quality!
On the other hand, one fact was clear and indisputable: the dramatic botch-up had come straight out of a work of fiction, and that’s all there was to it. But this was not always the case, either in the local press, or in the first account told by Robert Charroux, later developed by Gérard de Sède-Chérisey-Plantard, up to the "Message" of the sacred enigma (the blessed enigma, without punning), where the wildest hypotheses have been produced, fortunately without any real success, regarding the restoration of the Grand Monarch. The latest nonsense to date, after the odysseys of the British, makes a poor impression even if the author is led to take a ride in a flying saucer to have discussion with the Knights of the Black Order….
So, one of two things: either this unbelievable story has some respectable foundations, or it is the dumping ground for fantasies of every sort.
Let us recapitulate the few facts that are quite clear:
1° - Robert Charroux elaborated the story of Abbé Saunière’s treasure from the basis of parchments (wooden scrolls, filled with ferns), the inscription on a gravestone, and the legend of the treasure of Saint Louis. Previously, during the filming of a documentary for O.R.T.F. (French Radio and Television Organisation), he had carried out some excavations in the cemetery, but in vain…
2° - Gérard de Sède, after the Gisors fiasco, together with Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey, brought out in 1967 THE ACCURSED GOLD, based on elements that were completely falsified:
In an unpublished collection, STONE AND PAPER, Philippe de Chérisey acknowledged and explained how he had created the infamous "parchments of Abbé Saunière". The careful observer could have noticed, as early as 1967, that the faint inscription on the altar of the church at Rennes-le-Château was copied in the said parchments, especially regarding the first two lines. Finally, to put an end to this major point, we can inform you that the two fakes are in our possession, that they have been analysed, and that they are no older than a quarter of a century!
3° - The inscription: Reddis-Regis-Cellis-Arcis originates from the same fabrication, as the local journalist of 1905 bears witness!
4° - The Visigothic pillar was neither hollow nor ancient, but was in fact a Carolingian imitation, constructed and engraved in 1890. A smaller version has been found in Carcassonne with the signature of the engraver!
5° - The loans from the Land Savings Bank ("Crédit Foncier") for which we have the paperwork, show clearly that from 1905 Abbé Saunière lived in some poverty. As for the constructions he had built, all the people that have visited this village of few inhabitants have come away greatly disappointed!
6° - The curious hypothesis in the last romance of Gérard de Sède, returning again to the priest’s treasure to substantiate a Rosicrucian Rite, based on the creators of the society of the Alpha-Galates, is even less believable.
It is sufficient to consult the secret service report on the above-mentioned organisation, dated 29th November 1942, which ends with a more prosaic, even derisory version: "In response to a request for information from the Minister of the Interior, because of the distribution in Brittany of various tracts signed by a ‘Varans Vincent’, giving the headquarters of the association as 36 rue de l’Abbé Groult, Paris (15), the Alpha-Galates association was under investigation from 18th July 1942."
The investigations carried out at that time did not manage to track down anyone called ‘Varans Vincent’ or any association called ‘Alpha Galates’ at this address. It seems now that it was in fact the work of someone called Plantard who is known sometimes to adopt the pseudonym of "Varrans de Verrestra". To sum up, we can consider the creation of the association of the Alpha-Galates to be no more than a new attempt by Plantard to be taken seriously by the authorities. In any case, the membership total of 673 given by the organisers is far from accurate.
On 13th February 1945 a second secret service report painted a complete portrait of Pierre Plantard, which is quite revealing:
M. Plantard, Pierre Athanase Marie a.k.a. "Pierre de France", born on 18th March 1920 in Paris (7°), son of Pierre and Raulo Amélie, is unmarried.
Since 1st July 1942, resident at 10 rue Leboutex, Paris (17°), with his mother. Previously resided 22 Place Malesherbes (same district). Declared profession: journalist, speaker; at present practices no profession. For several years has been sexton for the parish of Saint-Louis d’Antin. In fact, he seems to be dependent on his mother, who receives a pension since the death of her husband, killed in a work accident.
In 1937, M. Plantard attempted to form an anti-Jewish and anti-Masonic movement, with the aim of "purifying and renewing France". From M. Daladier, the then Prime Minister, he sought authorisation to publish a journal entitled "The Renewal of France" for distribution to members of the movement. He also led a "Catholic youth group", officially for youth recreation in the various parishes of Paris. Every year this group organised a holiday camp at Pléstin-les-Gréves (Côtes du NORD, Brittany), which in 1939 numbered 75 young people.
Plantard addressed a conference of young people organised by the "Catholic youth group" on 20th June 1939 at the Villiers Hall.
On 16th December 1940 he wrote a letter to Marshal Pétain, which on the pretext of denouncing a Jewish Masonic plot seemed rather more designed to draw attention to himself. Finally in May 1941, he formed an association known as "French National Renewal" which never became active, as authorisation was refused by the German authorities on 3rd September 1941.
On 24th October 1942 Plantard was investigated by French secret services at the request of the German authorities, after he had requested authorisation, which was in any case denied, to form the above-mentioned association.
These various requests, and perhaps his attitude towards the occupying authorities, earned him a four-month prison sentence in Fresnes prison. Plantard seemed to be a young crank with the delusion of being the only man capable of organising the young people of France.
FINALLY, this last report concluded: "According to information gathered, this association has shown no activity to date. There are approximately 50 members, which resign in turn, as soon as they have sussed the President of the association, and have realised that the association does not have a serious purpose".
We are a long way from the wild imaginings of Gérard de Sède or of the British in their latest work entitled "The Message".
7° - The same causes, producing the same effects: the consequences of forming "associations" will be much the same. Thus, on 26th August 1947 the "Latin Academy" was formed, replacing the Alpha-Galates and its President was none other than Mrs Amélie-Raulo Plantard! Its declared aim was "scientific research"! Finally, the Priory of Sion was created in 1956. We were able to contact former members of this office, who all burst out laughing when we mentioned Rennes-le-Château. According to its former President, the association was at the time a "club for boy scouts" and NOTHING MORE….!
8° - The genealogies so dear to the hearts of the readers of THE SACRED ENIGMA, have been taken straight from a special issue of the historical journal "les Cahiers de l’Histoire" (no.1, 1960) to which have been added the names of the ancestors of the former sexton, alias Varrin de Vincestra, a.k.a. Pierre de France, baptised as Saint-Clair, but known to the secret services and to the state as Pierre Plantard…
FAREWELL, to the Merovingian king turned former sexton, farewell to the British epic, farewell to the descendants of Jesus, farewell to the last Ayatollah of the British and to the…last Grand Master of the Templars. We remain amazed, however, at the headlong flight of Messrs Lincoln, Baigent, Richard Leigh and indeed….Gérard de Sède, who were perfectly aware of the existence of these two reports, filed under "Alpha Galates" in the archives of the Police headquarters, a file which is open to the general public…!
And so, now that we have recalled these eight points which form the myths and legends of Rennes-le-Château, let us ask ourselves what need there ever was for such extensive manipulations and operations, and bearing in mind the old-saying: "A legend repeated becomes a tale almost true", when M. André Gratadour comes along to inform us of his latest hypothesis.
Jean-Luc Chaumeil.
Priory of Sion Updates
(including "parchments")
The worldwide success of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code continues to attract the publication of new books as well as fresh online articles providing factual accounts of the Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Château – and how everything is largely based upon a modern hoax and not upon authentic history.
‘The Treasure of Rennes-le-Château – A Mystery Solved’ by Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood has just been republished in paperback – being an updated and revised version of their previous hardback version – adding key additional material in several chapters. This is currently the only sensible book on this subject matter that is available in the English language – containing essential information about both the Abbé Bérenger Saunière and Pierre Plantard.
For example, in relation to the bogus claim for the Abbé Bérenger Saunière discovering a treasure in 1891, the authors point out on page 166 that the priest really was not that wealthy and had borrowed the sum of 500 francs from Mme Matte Barthelmy during that year – evidently this information was either unknown or suppressed by those arguing for the existence of a "mystery" and Putnam and Wood justifiably conclude between pages 178-188 of their book that the whole subject matter represents pseudo-history that is of modern origin: "This is a dramatic story and as entertainment could hardly be bettered, but we have shown in this book that there are no grounds for taking it seriously."
Massimo Introvigne’s article Beyond The Da Vinci Code: History and Myth of the Priory of Sion outlines the Right Wing Monarchist background and anti-semitic mindset of Pierre Plantard, as well as mentioning his criminal convictions. Massimo Introvigne is the author of the Italian book, Gli Illuminati e il Priorato di Sion (Piemme, Milano 2005).
Two very good recent French publications are Jean-Jacques Bedu’s Les Sources Secrètes du Da Vinci Code (Éditions du Rocher, 2005); and the book by Marie-France Etchegoin and Frédéric Lenoir, Les Sources Secrètes du Da Vinci Code (Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 2004) – both books having made extensive use of the documentation about Pierre Plantard as contained on this website.
Extensive transcripts from File Ga P7, the Police Record from the Paris Prefecture of Police that outline Pierre Plantard’s anti-semitic activities between 1937-1954, have been made available on a French website that is maintained by Laurent Buchholtzer.
Another serious account based upon historical evidence about this subject matter has been published in the Portuguese language – Bernardo Sanchez da Motta’s Do Enigma de Rennes-le-Château ao Priorado de Siao (Esquilo, 2005). Over 500 pages long, it is a welcome addition to the Portuguese Language which has witnessed many being duped by the myth in South American countries.
The latest update concerning Jean-Luc Chaumeil’s long-awaited book is that it is scheduled for release at the end of 2005. We eagerly await the publication of M. Chaumeil’s extensive and unique archive on Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey, providing first-hand evidence detailing the exact nature of the Priory of Sion hoax that has fooled so many around the world.
Jean-Luc Chaumeil has appeared on several documentaries examining the The Da Vinci Code and it was not always possible to include all the critical and detailed information that he provided about the Priory of Sion. But sometimes important new facts do emerge under such contexts: on a recent French documentary aired by the Odyssée channel in April 2005, Chaumeil explained how the Latin text to the smaller "parchment" had been copied by Philippe de Chérisey from the Codex Bezae (cf Luke 6:1-9) , and how Philippe de Chérisey had copied this text from the book by Fulcran Grégoire Vigouroux Dictionnaire De La Bible (Letouzey et Ané, Éditeurs, Tome Premier; 1895).
Latin scholars have pointed out that the text from the Codex Bezae could only have been copied by someone who did not understand Latin, because Philippe de Chérisey made basic mistakes in copying some of the uncials and consequently did not get the spelling right on several occasions. This information is frequently omitted by those who promote the "parchments" as being authentic (the latest example being Franck Daffos).
Welcome to the Website of
Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood
Have you read Dan Brown's Book The Da Vinci Code?
Have you heard of the Priory of Sion?
Do you know about Rennes-le-Château?
Are you more interested in historical accuracy than myth and legend?
Do you want to know more?
Then this site should have something of interest for you.
Bill Putnam is a retired university archaeologist and John Edwin Wood a retired scientist. Together, over a period of several years, they have investigated the story of the treasure of Rennes-le-Château and the Priory of Sion, using the same rigorous methods as they employed during their professional careers.
They have discovered that there are many inaccuracies in the published books, and a great deal of unsupported speculation. By looking carefully at the original evidence, such as the departmental archives of the Aude, files from the French National Library in Paris, the council records of Rennes-le-Château, and the material evidence of buildings and the local archaeology, they have pieced together an amazing story of invention, deception and commercial exploitation.
Their results are documented in a book, The Treasure of Rennes-le-Château - A Mystery Solved, published by Sutton Publishing Limited in November 2003. A revised paperback edition appeared in July 2005.
Rennes-le-Château is a little village in the south of France, not far from Carcassonne. It was a very poor parish, but in the eighteen nineties the priest Bérenger Saunière came into a lot of money, nobody knew from where. With it he restored his church, built a luxurious new presbytery and a tower which he used as a library. He laid out handsome gardens. The story grew that he had found treasure, but what really was the priest's secret?
The authors reveal the answer in their book, and much more besides.
See also the website of Paul Smith at www.priory-of-sion.com
Da Vinci Code
Creating a New Age version of Christianity?
Paul Smith
Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is the most successful best-selling novel of all time – hitting the public pulse in an age of secularism, impersonal scientific objectivity and the growing rise in popular New Age systems of belief.
Dan Brown's supporters argue that there is nothing to worry about because The Da Vinci Code is only a novel and therefore a fiction – but Dan Brown himself argues that the basic element to the plot in his novel is based on suppressed religious history that has been covered up by the Vatican since the beginning of Christianity. Furthermore, Dan Brown is still arguing that an organisation called the Priory of Sion existed in Crusader period Jerusalem and that it later became a part of the Knights Templar – and that the List of Grand Masters found in the 1967 Dossiers Secrets is genuine. Dan Brown also entertains the possibility that there was a marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene that produced children, the descendants of which survive to this very day.
These basic elements in the plot to The Da Vinci Code have been lifted by Dan Brown from other books that can only be described as Pseudo-Historical in nature and commonly found on the ‘Mind, Body and Spirit' bookshelves in libraries and bookshops (designated as ‘New Age’ in America).
The success of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has inspired the formation of communities of believers on the internet having their own moderated discussion lists, trying to argue the case that the subject matter is both historically and rationally viable – and their sheer inability to produce historical evidence to back-up their desired beliefs does not deter them in the slightest – in fact it inspires them even more. A prominent player in this field is Loretta Kemsley (president of Women Artists and Writers International, which publishes Moondance: Celebrating Creative Women) – so obsessive is Loretta Kemsley's interest in the bogus marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene that she writes between 10 and 20 messages per day on the various internet discussion lists that she either manages or belongs to.
The direction these people wish to take remains something of a puzzle. If there is a Jesus Christ Bloodline existing in the present day – does it matter? Do these people wish to turn the direct descendant of Jesus Christ into the King of the World? The idea that Jesus Christ produced offspring automatically produces the acceptance that the Bloodline exists to this very day and the two cannot be easily seperated – it smacks more of Magic than of "historical fact".
The two principal arguments contained in The Da Vinci Code concern the Priory of Sion and the marriage of Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalene that produced children. So popular has been the impact of the basic plot in Dan Brown's novel that it has resulted in the virtual formation of a New Age version of Christianity. So what are the real facts?
The Facts
Dan Brown Argument 1
The Priory of Sion
The history of the Priory of Sion is unexciting and quite bland – originally formed in 1956 by Pierre Plantard and another individual as an organisation devoted to the cause of Low Cost Housing and attacking the planning developers of Annemasse (the town where Pierre Plantard lived during the 1950s), it was named after a local mountain called Mont Sion situated close to Lake Geneva (Col du Mont Sion). And Pierre Plantard, the person involved in the formation of the Priory of Sion served time in prison during 1953 for abuse of trust (the evidence for this is found in a letter written by the Mayor of Annemasse and located in the Sub Prefecture in the town of St Julien-en-Genevois, stemming from an investigation into the Priory of Sion dating from May 1956 carried out by the local Council and the local Police). The Priory of Sion itself terminated sometime after August 1956 when Plantard served another time in prison between December 1956 and December 1957 over allegations relating to "corruption of minors".
During the early 1960s Pierre Plantard made the acquaintance of French author Gérard de Sède, and embarked upon a literary deal with him writing about the castle of Gisors located in the Normandy region of France – it was during this period of time – the early 1960s – that Pierre Plantard began claiming that the Priory of Sion originated in the Crusader period Jerusalem – claiming a link between his Priory of Sion and the religious order of the Abbey de Notre Dame du Mont Sion (the history of this latter religious order is well documented and it had no links with Plantard’s 1956 society, dying-out during the seventeenth century). It was during this period of time onwards that Plantard began creating a false pedigree about the Priory of Sion, later alleging that it was part of the Knights Templar and that it was the Guardian of the Merovingian Bloodline (Plantard also claimed he was descended from the Merovingian King Dagobert II from the early 1960s onwards, but in fact he was really only descended from a 16th century peasant who picked walnuts). Plantard later met and began collaborating with Philippe de Chérisey, a bit-part actor, amateur poet and surrealist who was interested in esoteric puzzles – and this created another aspect to the modern myth of the Priory of Sion that Plantard was involved in creating – de Chérisey’s input inspired by surrealist elements.
As for the 1967 Dossiers Secrets – Plantard first began fabricating bogus genealogies when he first met Gérard de Sède – and these genealogies were included in documents that contained his signature, showing that they were his fabrications. Plantard used the exactly same stencil-kit when he fabricated the Dossiers Secrets – proving that the Dossiers Secrets in the Bibliotheque Nationale were his fabrication. As for the Grand Masters List of the Priory of Sion – that too was an invention – but Plantard copied that list of names for his Dossiers Secrets from another source – during the early 1960s a French Mystic named Raymond Bernard formed a neo-Templar group and he compiled a List of Names that Plantard later simply added into his Dossiers Secrets claiming they were the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion. One additional name was included in the List that was missing from the one invented by Raymond Bernard – that of surrealist and poet Jean Cocteau – because of Philippe de Chérisey's interest in surrealism.
That the whole original Priory of Sion story was originally a myth fabricated by Pierre Plantard can further be demonstrated by the existence of letters dating from the 1960s and written between Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chérisey and Gerard de Sede, showing that all three of them were engaged in a confidence trick with the intention of making money. These letters are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil.
During the late 1980s Plantard revised his myth of the Priory of Sion – rejecting and repudiating the earlier version he himself fabricated in the 1967 Dossiers Secrets and compiled a brand new List of Grand Masters and devising a new pedigree – claiming it was founded in 1681 in Rennes-le-Château by the Grandfather of Marie de Negri d'Ables.
Plantard also claimed that Roger Patrice Pelat had been a Grand Master of this 1980s revised version of the Priory of Sion, and this later got him into trouble with Judge Thierry Jean Pierre – who led an investigation into a corruption scandal that involved Pelat. In 1993 French Police ransacked Pierre Plantard's home and according to one individual who investigated the matter Plantard swore on oath that everything he claimed about the Priory of Sion was made up. Between 1993 and 2000 when Plantard died, there were no more allegations about the Priory of Sion, no more Priory Documents deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale, and up to the time of his death Pierre Plantard lived a life of isolation and seclusion – no longer involving himself with any more Priory of Sion activities.
Dan Brown Argument 2
Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene
In historical reality, Christianity is a 2,000 plus year-old religion that originated in Israel out of Judaism based upon the belief that Jesus Christ was cognate with God and therefore Divine in nature, the central aspect of which is the Resurrection – symbolically enacted in Catholic Churches around the world by the priest at the altar in the form of the Ceremony of the Mass whereby through the process of Transubstantiation the Bread and the Wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The early history of Christianity was fraught with many forms of diversities of belief involving struggles between the various factions (as evidenced in the letters of Paul, the earliest Christian writings) – but essentially speaking the most popular version of the religion naturally became the victor and subsequent official version.
One thing stands out when looking through all the historical evidence about Christianity – despite all the diversities of belief in its formative era – all Christian sects were united in one essential thing – believing that Jesus Christ was Divine and believing in the Resurrection – Christians and Gnostics may have disputed over the interpretations – but all were in universal agreement about the Divine in Christianity. To the Christians, Jesus Christ was the Son of God who literally rose from the dead; to the Gnostics Jesus Christ was a Divine Revealer of Sacred Knowledge and the Resurrection to the Gnostics was their intrinsic pathway to achieving their sacred knowledge.
There is not the slightest historical hint in any known text, either in primitive Christianity or in Gnosticism, that an ordinary human being was being worshipped that involved a continuing bloodline – put bluntly, basing a Religion on a Human Being who produced offspring just would never have taken off to become the Christianity it is today.
To underscore this point there is the example of the Jewish Political Revolutionary Simon Bar Kosiba (or Bar Kochba) who believed himself to be of the Line of David – his Jewish rebellion circa AD125-130 against Roman Occupation was instigated by the building of the Roman Temple of Jupiter on the spot where the Jerusalem Temple once stood. His revolt failed miserably and the Romans killed Kosiba. No religion was formed as a result of this.
The idea that there was a marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene that produced children only dates back to 1982 in the pseudo-historical book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln – none of those authors were willing to accept that Pierre Plantard was a confidence trickster and that the Priory of Sion was a hoax – despite being told these things in advance by French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil. Michael Baigent is still obsessed today by the existence of the Line of David, and he merely transposed his personal obsession in the Line of David over Plantard’s fake genealogies contained in the fabricated 1967 Dossiers Secrets in 1982. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail never presented any reason, let alone evidence, about why there should have been a marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene that produced children in the first place.
A major fault with The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is that it was all Off-Topic – the Priory of Sion had nothing at all to do with Christian origins. Pierre Plantard merely claimed to be directly descended from a Merovingian King and nothing else. On a France-Inter radio interview dated 18 February 1982, Pierre Plantard told Jacques Pradel: "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is a good book, but one must say that there is a part that owes more to fiction than to fact, especially in the part that deals with the lineage of Jesus. How can you prove a lineage of four centuries from Jesus to the Merovingians? I have never put myself forward as a descendant of Jesus Christ".
The popularity of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail – a bestseller itself in 1982 – later inspired other authors to jump on the same bandwagon – Laurence Gardner, Margaret Starbird, Timothy Wallace-Murphy, Barbara Thiering and Tracy Twyman to name just a few – all of them having the inability to offer any historical evidence to substantiate their belief in the central theory that is found in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
"…and used to kiss her often on her…"
In the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene is Fallen Wisdom that is barren
Their "source material" is usually selective in nature and distorted out of context to promote their various arguments. For example, these writers always omit the fact that in The Golden Legend by Jacobus Voraigne Mary Magdalene the traveller to Marseilles is presented as the wife of Saint John. And in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene is depicted as the personification of Fallen Wisdom that is barren in nature.
So, whatever the future holds for the belief in the marriage of Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalene that produced children – taken seriously by Dan Brown – the certainty that exists is that none of this is based on historical fact. It represents desired belief and absolutely nothing else. If a New Age Version of Christianity does evolve out of The Da Vinci Code, it can only be a product of gross human ignorance and gullibility.
The Da Vinci Code
And
The Last Supper
The Da Vinci Code contains a multitudinous amount of mistakes and here is only one example.
Was Leonardo Da Vinci’s depiction of the Disciple John in his painting of The Last Supper really that "unique" because the figure concerned is depicted beardless and effeminate in nature?
The examples below demonstrate that Leonardo Da Vinci was not the only artist who depicted the Disciple John in such a way within the context of The Last Supper (and it should also be noted that Medieval Christian apocryphal tradition also maintains that the Disciple John was married to Mary Magdalene – as claimed in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voraigne, when discussing Mary Magdalene’s "journey to Marseilles", for example).
Cracking the Da Vinci Code? – Not likely!
Paul Smith
Cracking the Da Vinci Code by Simon Cox is a hoot – Cox merely invites more mystifications by repeating the (now long dead in France) Priory of Sion myths and presenting them as "mysteries" – and Cox should really replace the word mystery with myth within the context of The Da Vinci Code – because everything that Dan Brown has written about the Priory of Sion was based not on historical facts but rather on claims found in the Priory of Sion documents – all bogus works of historical fiction stemming from Plantard's fertile imagination (and what gave them a deeper ‘esoteric’ flavour was Philippe de Chérisey's input, who tried to decorate the fantasies in a surrealist fashion).
What was the Priory of Sion?
According to Simon Cox, the "existence of the Priory of Sion continues to be an elusive mystery, even today", and, "The trio (of Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln) never did ultimately discover what the real purpose of the Priory of Sion was."
There is no "mystery" surrounding the Priory of Sion. It existed in three different guises during three different periods of time – in 1956 (when it was first formed, not during the Crusades), between 1961-1985, and between 1989-1993. Simon Cox has decided to omit altogether its existence during the years 1989-1993, possibly because one of his "sources" did not like this particular information about Pierre Plantard (a certain Robin Crookshank Hilton) – that its 1989-1993 existence was authentic cannot be doubted since proof exists in the form of letters written by Pierre Plantard himself, and documentation in the Bibliotheque Nationale verifies the material as originating from Pierre Plantard's home address.
There is no mystery over what the aim of the Priory of Sion was in its 1961-1985 and 1989-1993 guises – there is a very clear statement of purpose – the restoration of the Merovingian Dynasty – this is overtly promoted in all of the Priory Documents from those periods of time – and Pierre Plantard claimed (since 1964) to be the direct lineal descendant of Dagobert II – and the whole purpose and aim of the Priory of Sion immediately collapses with this allegation simply because Plantard was a fraud who was really descended from a 16th century peasant who picked walnuts!
The 1956 version of the Priory of Sion was something completely different to the other two versions that existed between 1961-1985 and 1989-1993. This was a real group of real people formed to devote themselves to opposing the planners of Annemasse Council and backing the opposition candidate at the local elections. There was nothing "mysterious" or "esoteric" about this version of the Priory of Sion which was a local government pressure group that supported the idea of Low-Cost Housing. This 1956 version terminated after October 1956, following Plantard getting into trouble with the Police.
Cox alleged that Plantard "never actually confirmed or denied this theory" in relation to his being descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, when in actual fact Plantard wasted no time in denying it – first on a 1982 French Radio Interview and then in a 1983 article by Philippe de Chérisey entitled Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians found here:
http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id152.html
Cox added that the Priory of Sion was "relaunched" on 27 December 2002 by Gino Sandri – without giving his readers the vital information that this fell like a lead balloon in France – because all interest in the Priory of Sion terminated in France during the mid-1980s. Nobody in France is taking any notice of Gino Sandri because nobody in France is interested in the Priory of Sion.
Who was Pierre Plantard?
Simon Cox has omitted quite a portion about Pierre Plantard’s life from his book – especially his 1937-1954 activities and his 1953 prison conviction for which, see:
http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id170.html
Pierre Plantard was a lifelong charlatan and fantasist who between 1937-1989 created several phantom associations and who also made bogus allegations that he had various liaisons with various prominent and famous people in order to attract attention to himself.
The Dossiers Secrets
Simon Cox rightly described the Dossiers Secrets as a collection of "newspaper clippings, assorted letters, genealogy charts, and a 'tableau'," – but failing to say that these things all represented (very poor) fictitious material supporting the claims of a charlatan.
The Grand Masters List in the Dossiers Secrets was mainly derived from a French AMORC document compiled by Raymond Bernard. Names not found in the French AMORC document – like Jean Cocteau, for example – were added to the List version found in the Dossiers Secrets by Philippe de Chérisey (on account of his interest in surrealism).
L’abbé Bérenger Saunière
Simon Cox seems to be totally ignorant about the real life of Bérenger Saunière, possibly because he hasn't read any of the reliable French books about the Rennes-le-Château story, and instead relies solely upon the unreliable accounts found in English Language books, most of which are hopeless (the recently published The Treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Mystery Solved by Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood, remedies this sad situation and is recommended reading).
Simon Cox alleges that, "In 1891, inspired by Boudet's romantic tales of local history, Saunière raised the funds to carry out a modest restoration of his church" – which is simply untrue – Saunière began the restorations of his church in 1886 when he replaced the Main Church Altar and Stained-Glass Windows during that year.
The allegation that Saunière "discovered parchments" whilst renovating his church is not based upon any solid historical evidence – this only first materialised during the mid-1950s following the opening of a Restaurant in the Villa Bethanie by Noel Corbu – who bought Saunière's old estate from Marie Dénarnaud in 1946. The "parchments discovery" story began as a publicity gimmick by Corbu to attract custom to his restaurant along with his allegation that "Saunière discovered a treasure".
Likewise Simon Cox's other allegations concerning Saunière – his "journey to St Sulpice", his "visiting the Louvre", his "defacing inscriptions from gravestones", his "long walks in the countryside", etc, are equally fictitious accounts about the priest dating from only the mid-1950s onwards. None of these allegations are based on actual verifiable historical evidence.
Cox claimed that after losing his priesthood, Saunière had "appealed directly to the Vatican, which overruled the suspension and reinstated him" – which again is simply untrue because Saunière never regained his priesthood – his lawyer, Canon Huguet, was still working on his case on the date of Saunière's death 22 January 1917 – and there is a letter from Canon Huguet proving this to be the case:
http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id71.html
Cox also added: "It is said that the priest who attended Saunière to hear his last confession refused to administer the rite of extreme unction and that Saunière died unshriven on January 22" – which is also untrue because we know this much:
http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id125.html
Cox concluded about Saunière: "Speculation about what Saunière might have discovered to make him a wealthy man continues over 100 years later...." Simon Cox has evidently not read any of the essential French books on this subject matter – which produce the historical evidence about Saunière's activities and, crucially, documentation about the source of his wealth:
http://priory-of-sion.com/bedu/autopsie.html
Saunière’s source of wealth as being generated from the selling of masses over a 20-year period wasn’t just something dreamed-up by his superiors at the Carcassonne Bishopric. The actions taken against Saunière that culminated in his suspension from priestly duties took place as a result of complaints made from numerous religious organisations and individual priests who had noticed what the priest of Rennes-le-Château had been up to – accepting more money than he was able to say masses for. Without these complaints, the Carcassonne Bishopric would have taken no action against Saunière.
Cracking the Da Vinci Code by Simon Cox is only one example out of hundreds where verifiable historical facts become omitted for the sake of experiencing the fun in believing in mysteries and thrills. Belief in what creates fun and excitement overrides the acknowledgment of verifiable historical facts that tell a different story and expose charlatanism and mythmaking.
HOME
The Last Word: The Da Vinci Con
by Laura Miller ("The New York Times", February 22, 2004).
imgThe ever-rising tide of sales of ''The Da Vinci Code'' has lifted some pretty odd boats, and none odder than the dodgy yet magisterial ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. A best seller in the 1980's, ''Grail'' is climbing the paperback charts again on the strength of its relationship to Dan Brown's thriller (which has, in turn, inspired a crop of new nonfiction books coming out this spring, from ''Breaking the Da Vinci Code'' to ''Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code''). ''The Da Vinci Code'' is one long chase scene in which the main characters flee a sinister Parisian policeman and an albino monk assassin, but its rudimentary suspense alone couldn't have made it a hit. At regular intervals, the book brings its pell-mell plot to a screeching halt and emits a pellet of information concerning a centuries-old conspiracy that purports to have preserved a tremendous secret about the roots of Christianity itself. This ''nonfiction'' material gives ''The Da Vinci Code'' its frisson of authenticity, and it's lifted from ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' one of the all-time great works of pop pseudohistory. But what seems increasingly clear (to cop a favorite phrase from the authors of ''Grail'') is that ''The Da Vinci Code,'' like ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' is based on a notorious hoax.
The back story to both books, like most conspiracy theories, is devilishly hard to summarize. Both narratives begin with a mystery that leads sleuths to vaster and more sinister intrigues. In Brown's novel, it's the murder of a curator at the Louvre; in ''Grail,'' it's the unusual affluence of a priest in a village in the south of France. In the late 1960's, Henry Lincoln, a British TV writer, became interested in Rennes-le-Chateau, a town that had become the French equivalent of Roswell or Loch Ness as a result of popular books by Gerard de Sède. De Sède promulgated a story about parchments supposedly found in a hollowed-out pillar by the town priest in the 1890’s, parchments containing coded messages that the priest somehow parlayed into oodles of cash. Lincoln worked on several ''Unsolved Mysteries''-style documentaries about Rennes-le-Château, then enlisted Baigent and Leigh for a more in-depth investigation.
What eventually emerges from the welter of names, dates, maps and genealogical tables crammed into ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' is a yarn about a secret and hugely influential society called the Priory of Sion, founded in Jerusalem in 1099. This cabal is said to have guarded documents and other proof that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus (who may or may not have died on the Cross) and that she carried his child with her when she fled to what is now France after the Crucifixion, becoming, figuratively, the Holy Grail in whom Jesus' blood was preserved. Their progeny intermarried with the locals, eventually founding the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish monarchs. Although deposed in the eighth century, the Merovingian lineage has not been lost; the Priory has kept watch over its descendants, awaiting an auspicious moment when it will reveal the astonishing truth and return the rightful monarch to the throne of France, or perhaps even a restored Holy Roman Empire.
All the usual suspects and accouterments of paranoid history get caught up in this 1,000-year jaunt: the Cathar heretics, the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Vatican, the Freemasons, Nazis, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Order of the Golden Dawn -- everyone but the Abominable Snowman seems to be in on the game. ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' is a masterpiece of insinuation and supposition, employing all the techniques of pseudohistory to symphonic effect, justifying this sleight of hand as an innovative scholarly technique called ''synthesis,'' previously considered too ''speculative'' by those whose thinking has been unduly shaped by the ''so-called Enlightenment of the 18th century.'' Comparing themselves to the reporters who uncovered the Watergate scandal, the authors maintain that ''only by such synthesis can one discern the underlying continuity, the unified and coherent fabric, which lies at the core of any historical problem.'' To do so, one must realize that ''it is not sufficient to confine oneself exclusively to facts.''
Thus liberated, Lincoln et al. concoct an argument that is not so much factual as fact-ish. Dozens of credible details are heaped up in order to provide a legitimizing cushion for rank nonsense. Unremarkable legends (that Merovingian kings were thought to have a healing touch, for example) are characterized as suggestive clues or puzzles demanding solution. Highly contested interpretations (that, say, an early Grail romance depicts the sacred object as being guarded by Templars) are presented as established truth. Sources -- such as the New Testament -- are qualified as ''questionable'' and derivative when they contradict the conspiracy theory, then microscopically scrutinized for inconsistencies that might support it. The authors spin one gossamer strand of conjecture over another, forming a web dense enough to create the illusion of solidity. Though bogus, it's an impressive piece of work.
Finally, though, the legitimacy of the Priory of Sion history rests on a cache of clippings and pseudonymous documents that even the authors of ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' suggest were planted in the Bibliotheque Nationale by a man named Pierre Plantard. As early as the 1970's, one of Plantard's confederates had admitted to helping him fabricate the materials, including genealogical tables portraying Plantard as a descendant of the Merovingians (and, presumably, of Jesus Christ) and a list of the Priory's past ''grand masters.'' This patently silly catalog of intellectual celebrities stars Botticelli, Isaac Newton, Jean Cocteau and, of course, Leonardo da Vinci -- and it's the same list Dan Brown trumpets, along with the alleged nine-century pedigree of the Priory, in the front matter for ''The Da Vinci Code,'' under the heading of ''Fact.'' Plantard, it eventually came out, was an inveterate rascal with a criminal record for fraud and affiliations with wartime anti-Semitic and right-wing groups. The actual Priory of Sion was a tiny, harmless group of like-minded friends formed in 1956.
Plantard's hoax was debunked by a series of (as yet untranslated) French books and a 1996 BBC documentary, but curiously enough, this set of shocking revelations hasn't proved as popular as the fantasia of ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' or, for that matter, as ''The Da Vinci Code.'' The only thing more powerful than a worldwide conspiracy, it seems, is our desire to believe in one.
Grateful thanks to Patricia Briel for providing permission to use
an English translation of the articles from 'Le Temps' on this website.
From 'Le Temps' (Swiss Newspaper), Geneva, 15.3.2004
Best-seller 'The Da Vinci Code' is based on a deception
Dan Brown's esoteric thriller, which has now appeared in a French translation after selling 6 million copies in its original English version, is a work of fiction that acknowledges the truth of just two established facts: the existence of Opus Dei and the existence of the Priory of Sion. The problem is that the latter organisation was invented fifty years ago by an anti-Semitic oddball in neighbouring France...
by Luc Debraine
Monday 15 March 2004
The Chief Curator of the Louvre, Jacques Saunière, is found murdered in the museum's main gallery. He is stark naked. His corpse is found inscribed within a circle just like that of the famous drawing by Leonardo Da Vinci known as the Man of Vitruvius. An anagram, as well as a mysterious sequence of numbers, is inscribed on the inlaid parquet floor. Informed of the murder while on a visit to Paris, an American friend of the curator, Robert Langdon, rushes to the scene of the crime. That proves to be a big mistake by this Harvard Professor of Art History: he immediately becomes No. 1 suspect and is forced to flee.
In his flight from the police Robert Langdon, who bears an uncanny resemblance to actor Harrison Ford, takes with him a beautiful young French police cryptographer, Sophie Neveu, who has also been accused of being involved in the violent death of Jacques Saunière. Pursued by a strange police superintendent and an albino monk from Opus Dei, the couple are forced to solve one by one the puzzles left behind at the scene of the crime by the curator just before his death in an effort to shed some light on the truth. And the truth of the matter is that Jacques Saunière is the director of the Priory of Sion, a secret society that, down the centuries, has jealously guarded the secret location of and, above all, the true nature of that relic of all relics: the Holy Grail.
That - in rough outline - is the plot of the 'Da Vinci Code', Dan Brown's fourth novel. A former English teacher, this American author was completely unknown until last spring. Then, after its appearance in the USA in March 2003, his esoteric thriller remained firmly at the top of the best-sellers lists, to the extent of becoming a publishing phenomenon that transcended the usual limitations of its genre: six million copies sold, translated into forty languages (the French version has just been published), not forgetting the film adaptation currently being prepared by director Ron Howard.
Like Mel Gibson, who is raking in tens (soon to be hundreds) of millions of dollars thanks to the runaway success of the 'Passion of Christ', the success of the 'Da Vinci Code' has made Dan Brown a rich man. And, similarly, the novel has triggered seemingly endless controversies as, like Gibson's film, it is based on Apocryphal Biblical texts that undermine Catholic orthodoxy from within. In the USA, the Church is concerned about the best-seller's influence on readers who might forget that it's just a work of fiction – it's a far-fetched story certainly, but it's also well-paced and is far from being stupid (I speak from experience, having read it at a single sitting). The Cardinal of Chicago, Francis George, has accused Dan Brown of exploiting - 'under the cover of erudition' - the taste of the general public for 'conspiracy theories'. Theologians and art historians have also criticised the author for allowing himself to be inspired by questionable religious sources, and for suggesting that Leonardo Da Vinci scattered secret esoteric codes throughout his works.
The fact is that Dan Brown makes only two real claims in the book: that Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion actually exist. There's no problem with Opus Dei, even if the way it's described in the novel as a murderous organisation prone to scarifying mortifications prompted a lively response from the organisation itself, which demanded - unsuccessfully as it turned out - that Dan Brown's publisher withdraw the reference to the Opus Dei from the thriller's factual prologue.
The other 'fact' is more problematic. The American author says he believes in the existence of the Priory of Sion, that it was founded in 1099, that its archives are kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and that its most eminent members have included Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, Da Vinci and even Jean Cocteau.
A simple Internet search after reading the book suggests a very different line of enquiry: that of a clever deception that, in inspiration, is half-religious and half-Royalist. A farrago created in the 1950s by an anti-Semitic oddball, the Priory of Sion has never actually existed outside the imaginations of a small group of devotees of bogus esotericism. It's also a piece of mystification incidentally that first saw the light of day near Annemasse, and whose crazy meanderings pass through the centre of Geneva. Now being used to lend an air of credibility to an international best-seller, the Priory of Sion has never guarded any secrets other than that of its true identity: a gigantic lie.
'THE DA VINCI CODE', Dan Brown, Ed. JC Lattès.
Pierre Plantard, founder of the Priory of Sion, an oddball in search of royal descent
The French fantasist created his own myth using the strange legend of a treasure buried in the environs of Rennes-le-Château.
by Patricia Briel
'A faultless piece of research', a 'learned' book, a 'history lesson': the American popular press has heaped endless praise on 'The Da Vinci Code', Dan Brown's best-seller which was published in the USA one year ago. But if one takes a closer look at the historical references used by the author - a former English teacher and art historian - one starts to question precisely how justified all this praise really is. In fact, Brown tries to pass off as the truth a story invented in its entirety by a French anti-Semitic fantasist who died in February 2000: Pierre Plantard. It's a story that begins in the 1950s in Haute-Savoie, at Saint-Julien-en-Genevois, and which involves the treasure of Rennes-le-Château, the Abbé Saunière, the secret genealogy of the Merovingians, mysterious parchments in code and many other things besides.
'Dossiers Secrets'
In his preface, Dan Brown states: 'The secret society of the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099, after the First Crusade. In 1975, parchments referred to as 'Dossiers Secrets' were discovered at the Bibliothèque Nationale [in Paris - Editor's Note], which mention the names of certain members of the Priory, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo Da Vinci'. These events, which Dan Brown presents as the truth, are simply untrue. The Priory of Sion was founded in June 1956 by Pierre Plantard, who at that time was working as a draughtsman at the Chanovin works in Annemasse. As for the 'Dossiers Secrets', they were forged and filed with the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris by Pierre Plantard in the 1960s. The French journalist Jean-Luc Chaumeil unmasked Plantard's imposture in the 1980s and published several books on the subject. He also collaborated with BBC2 on a TV programme which was broadcast in 1996, and which presented evidence demolishing the whole story. But it would seem that Dan Brown has not taken any account of this. The novelist has also not hesitated to make his heroine Sophie Neveu the descendant of the families Plantard and Saint-Clair (a name that Pierre Plantard adopted in 1975), who themselves were descended from the Merovingians, and who are presented in the novel as the descendants of the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene...
No political influence
Born in Paris in 1920, from 1937 onwards Pierre Plantard set up several fictitious movements of an anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic character, the aim of which was to 'purify and renew' France. Described as an oddball in two French Secret Service reports, he did not however appear to have any political influence. 'Plantard was a sacristan who lost his faith', Jean-Luc Chaumeil told 'Le Temps'. 'The son of a butler, he dreamed of having royal blood, and lived like a hermit. He acted alone and did not have any connection with extremist anti-Semites.' His bragging did however earn him two spells in prison. He was first sentenced at the end of the Second World War for having tried to set up organisations without permission. And in 1953 the Court of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois sentenced him to 6 months in prison for a breach of trust.
In June 1956, Pierre Plantard founded along with some friends the Priory of Sion, an association whose statutes are filed with the Sub-Prefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois and whose registered office is located in Annemasse. There is no historical reference to the existence of any Priory of Sion before that date. According to the founders, the Sion in the name did not relate to Jerusalem but to Mont-Sion, which is very near Geneva. The Priory was set up to defend the rights and liberties of the low-rental housing sector, and there is no hint of any of mysteries of any kind in this organisation, which ceased to exist in 1957.
In the mid 1950s, Pierre Plantard met Noël Corbu, the heir to Abbé Bérenger Saunière of Rennes-le-Château. This was an encounter that was to fire his imagination. Noël Corbu told him the strange story of Abbé Saunière, who was the priest of the small commune at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. The parish was poor, but a mysterious influx of money enabled the Abbé to renovate the church and build a villa as well as a tower. This money came from a treasure that the Abbé had discovered in the surroundings of the village using clues contained in parchments found inside one of the pillars of the church when renovation work was being carried out. However, the story of the 'treasure' was just a fantasy dreamed up by Noël Corbu to attract customers to the restaurant that he had opened in the villa. The reality is more straightforward: Abbé Saunière's money came from trafficking in masses, something that earned him suspension from his duties by the ecclesiastical authorities.
Shortly after this meeting, Pierre Plantard started creating his own myth. In the mid-60s, several mysterious documents were lodged with the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, collected together under the name of the 'Dossiers Secrets' of Henri Lobineau, a pseudonym. These include, in particular, genealogies of descendants of the Merovingian kings copied from parchments belonging to the Abbé Saunière and suggesting a blood relationship between King Dagobert I and Pierre Plantard; documents relating to the founding of the Priory of Sion in 1099 by Godefroy de Bouillon; and a list of Grand-Masters of the Priory going back to the 12th century, including Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Claude Debussy, and Jean Cocteau. All these documents suggest that the Priory of Sion held the key to the treasure of the Abbé Saunière, and that Pierre Plantard was the direct descendant of Dagobert II, who was assassinated in 679. Several of these texts created false trails in Switzerland and Geneva, involving fictitious publishing houses and non-existent Catholic magazines. Jean-Luc Chaumeil subsequently proved that the 'Dossiers Secrets' are in fact forgeries by Pierre Plantard and his accomplice Philippe de Chérisey.
Coded messages
Misled by the contents of the Dossiers, the author Gérard de Sède used them to write a book with Plantard's help. 'L'Or de Rennes', which revealed to the French public the connections between the Priory of Sion and the Abbé Saunière, was published in 1967. The work reproduced the parchments allegedly discovered by the Abbé, including some that might even enable the treasure to be found. Containing coded messages, they refer to Dagobert II and a canvas by Poussin, 'Les Bergers d'Arcadie', which were thought to provide clues to the location of the treasure.
In 1971, following a row with Gérard de Sède about the royalties from his book, Philippe de Chérisey publicly admitted that the parchments were his own forgeries. Plantard subsequently confirmed this to Jean-Luc Chaumeil, but subsequently claimed that these forgeries were actually copies of original parchments. Interest in this matter ebbed from 1975 onwards, but was revived in 1982 with the publication in English of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' [sic], an investigation in book form by three British journalists, Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. This work, which became a best seller in the English-speaking world, accepts the Priory myth and also formulates a bizarre hypothesis: Jesus, married to Mary Magdalene, could have had a child who was born after his crucifixion. According to the authors, this child would have been none other than the first of the Merovingians, and Pierre Plantard would have been his direct though distant descendant. But the deception went too far: wisely, Pierre Plantard never actually admitted that he believed in this divine descent, preferring to remain a 'mere' descendant of Dagobert II. Jean-Luc Chaumeil deplored the appearance of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail': 'I explained to Henry Lincoln that this whole business was a deception', he says.
In 1983-84, Jean-Luc Chaumeil revealed the troubled past of Plantard, who resigned from the Priory of Sion on 10 July 1984. Though discredited, he made a reappearance in 1989 with a new mythology about the Priory which, according to him, had been founded in Rennes-le-Château in 1681 and not in Jerusalem in 1099. He drew up a new list of the Grand Masters of the Priory, which was to prove his undoing: the list included the name of Roger-Patrice Pelat (an old friend of François Mitterrand) who, at the time of his death, was involved in a financial scandal. In 1993, while investigating this death, investigating magistrate Thierry-Jean Pierre, today a deputy in the European Parliament, ordered Pierre Plantard's apartment to be searched and there found documents certifying that Plantard was the true King of France. After close cross-examination, Plantard admitted his imposture and was let off with a severe reprimand. He never again tried to revive the myth of the Priory of Sion.
Others however have done this for him. Today, according to Jean-Luc Chaumeil, there are about 12 different Priories of Sion!
© Le Temps, 2004. All rights of reproduction and distribution reserved.
http://www.letemps.ch/
Priory of Sion Archives of Paul Smith
Site Meter
From: Le Nouvel Observateur
http://www.nouvelobs.com/articles/p2079/a248944.html
Week of Thursday 9 September 2004 – N° 2079 – Document
Keywords: freemasonry, extreme right, esotericism
An enquiry into the sources of ‘The Da Vinci Code’
Eight million readers worldwide (including 400,000 in France) have already succumbed to the charms of this politico-religious thriller which, using the Opus Dei and Vatican-style conspiracies as its raw material, claims to tell us the true story about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But the mystery is not confined to the pages of Dan Brown’s best seller: it’s also to be found in the sources used by the American novelist, as the latest investigations of Marie-France Etchegoin reveal… She has done some sleuthing of her own to shed light on some pretty suspicious and in some cases frankly ridiculous characters. The pleasure of reading Dan Brown’s book is not diminished, but even so it’s just as well to know precisely in what ink the author has dipped his pen…
Plantard was his name – Pierre Plantard. The son of a manservant, he claimed to be the descendant of the Merovingian kings – the last secret ‘heir’ of a bloodline that officially became extinct with the assassination of Dagobert II in 679! And he claimed to have documents in his possession to prove it. Before the Second World War he worked for several months as a sacristan in Paris. Later he described himself as a psychologist, a ‘doctor of science’, an ‘honorary member of several secret societies’, and, above all, Grandmaster of the Priory of Sion, a ‘powerful and very ancient order’ that was working in secret to establish a ‘popular monarchy run by a Merovingian’ that would espouse ‘true pre-Christian values’. The Priory of Sion, said Plantard, had included among its most distinguished members Leonardo Da Vinci and Jean Cocteau.
Plantard, fairly obviously just a clown, would normally have sunk into richly deserved obscurity. And yet, for several months now, his theories have been circling the world. But no one (or hardly anyone) knows that it was actually he who created them. Only the ‘adepts’ know the ‘incredible secret’: the fact that this humble sacristan was actually the person who inspired ‘The Da Vinci Code’, the best seller that’s already sold more than 8 million copies, a book that rides roughshod over the catechism and which has upset the Catholic church. And the central theme of this historico-esoteric thriller, which is set mostly in Paris and, more particularly, in the Louvre? The Priory of Sion of course! An organisation entrusted with the task of guarding and transmitting a secret that, thanks to the Vatican, has been smothered in blood and violence for centuries: the fact that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered children by her, children whose secret descendants are the Merovingians! Descendants who are still living in France and who – the book tells us – are called… Plantard! Just like the former sacristan! A reader who didn’t know any better would undoubtedly see the name Plantard, which conjures up images of berets and baguettes, as just another quintessentially French surname thought up by an American novelist. But in fact, by providing this ‘clue’, Dan Brown has ‘incriminated’ himself, and has also handed the reader a key that he does not perhaps particularly want him to turn. For by investigating the life and nauseating caprices of the anonymous Plantard and his various ‘disciples’ – whether crazy, cynical or just pranksters – we can reach an understanding of where Dan Brown got his sources from and of the ‘traditions’ that he refers to in the book without actually naming them. And we can conclude that his work of fiction is not perhaps as innocent as it first appears. But before we set out on the trail of the mysterious Monsieur Plantard, let’s first retell the story (for the benefit of those who have may have missed it).
Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene and they had lots of little Merovingians: at first glance the scenario is a grotesque one. Brown’s novel is certainly a page turner: short crisp chapters, with a new twist or turn in the plot every couple of pages. It’s like the Famous Five let loose in the Holy Land. But there’s no doubting the author’s qualifications for his task: 38 years old, a Professor of English in New Hampshire, with a degree in the History of Art – that much is certain. One reason for the success of the book is that he’s mining the inexhaustible seam of conspiracy theory, something that he’s already given a workout to in his previous books, such as ‘Angels and Demons’, in which Brown’s regular hero, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, tells how in times gone by the ‘Illuminati’ sought to dominate the world: ‘They became increasingly powerful in Europe. And then they left to conquer the United States, many of whose leaders have been Freemasons, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and others (…). They have used their secret influence to set up banks and businesses to finance their ultimate goal: the creation of a single global state and a new secular world order (…) based on science’ [unofficial translation]. This bears a remarkable resemblance to the theme of a ‘Masonic conspiracy’. A second major feature of Brown’s work is his penchant for feminist discourse, something that’s enchanted his American female fans. Two thousand years ago, he’s fond of saying in his various interviews (echoing his principal character Professor Langdon), gods and goddesses were regarded as absolutely equal. Today, however, women are deprived of their spiritual power. When he talks about religion, Dan Brown is certainly in tune with the times. Finally, he cashes on the basic human need for the miraculous and the mysterious. He sprinkles his narratives with anagrams and coded messages (for which a telephone often suffices). His admirers say that he’s written a ‘Harry Potter’ for adults. ‘He’s content to recycle all the old clichés of the religious imagination’, underlines Michel Quesnel, a Bible expert and Rector of the Catholic University of Lyons. The Templars, the Cathars, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the secrets buried in the Vatican cellars… Only Jesus’ twin brother is missing!
Dan Brown’s heroes may not have much psychological consistency, but they are formidably persuasive. They use comparative religion to guide us through the maze of the Eternal Mysteries, each using his or her own specialist topic as a starting point. Did you know, for example, that the solar disk of the Ancient Egyptian gods became the halo of the saints? That December 25th was also the birthday of Dionysus? That Snow White, who bit into the poisoned apple, is a ‘reference to the fall of Eve in the Garden of Eden’? That the Pyramid at the Louvre was commissioned by François Mitterrand, who was nicknamed the ‘Sphinx’, an event that, according to ‘The Da Vinci Code’, was certainly no accident? Dan Brown’s novel is like a gigantic funfair in which a merry-go-round of erudition dazzles the eye with the unexpected and with things that are not quite what they seem. Very much a novel of the Internet age, it spins a Web that’s as informative as it’s intoxicating. Do a Google search for Jesus, ET and Tom Cruise and you’ll see what I mean!
In France, the Episcopal Council has prepared a response to the questions that might just be in the minds of the book’s 400,000 French readers… just in case. In the USA, ‘The Da Vinci Code’ has long been the subject of heated debate. Fans of the book say they are stunned by the book’s ‘revelations’, while theologians and the universities have gone on the counter-attack. A dozen or so ‘books about the book’ have already appeared. Hollywood is also getting involved, of course, with a Ron Howard film already in preparation. And, this summer, tour operators have been organising ‘pilgrimages’ for tourists interested in visiting the places where the mystery is set. Even so, it’s partly or wholly due to the obscure Monsieur Plantard that thousands of Americans or Japanese are wandering through the corridors of the Louvre or the aisles of Saint-Sulpice in search of the ‘hidden truth’, meditating on the ‘message’ of the new bible that you’ll find at the top of the gondolas in all the supermarkets!
But Pierre Plantard, the dethroned Merovingian, is no longer around to enjoy all this global approbation. He died in 2000 at the age of 80. Dan Brown has never paid homage to him. No doubt he doesn’t want to make his life any more complicated than it needs to be. Plantard is certainly not the type of person one would wish to identify with. So how exactly did this distinguished American come across this demonic little Frenchman? It’s a long and incredible story, in which one encounters poets, admirers of Surrealism, nostalgic admirers of Pétain, a multimillionaire curé, and even Roger-Patrice Pelat. It’s the story of a mystery dreamed up within a small circle of ‘initiates’ and then turned into millions of dollars by an astute author and the American publishing industry.
Right at the beginning there was Pierre Plantard – an unsavoury character if ever there was one. His ‘career’ began in 1940. He’d just turned twenty and was active in occupied Paris. On 16 December 1940 he wrote an agitated letter to Pétain ‘begging him to put a stop to a war started by the Jews’ and informing him that he ‘had a hundred men at his disposal who were devoted to our cause’. According to several reports prepared by the intelligence services of the time and which today are lodged in the archives of the Prefecture of Police in Paris, ‘Plantard seemed to be one of these strange pretentious young people who set up and run more or less fictitious groups in an effort to give themselves a feeling of importance… so as to get the government to take them seriously’. He published an anti-Semitic magazine called ‘Vaincre’ (which, incidentally, he republished in the 1980s) and appointed himself leader of something called Rénovation nationale française, a small group that, according to a note in the police records, was ‘anti-Jewish and anti-Freemason and which aimed to ‘purify France’’. On 21 April 1941 Plantard wrote to the Prefecture to inform them that his organisation had decided, with ‘the support of the German high authorities’, to take possession of unoccupied premises at 22 place Malesherbes, which were let at that time to an English Jew called Shapiro. Some time later, again according to the intelligence services, he founded a second organisation, the Alpha Galates, an ‘order of chivalry’ and ‘mutual assistance’ whose motto was ‘Honneur et Patrie’ (‘Honour and Fatherland’), membership of which was apparently ‘forbidden to Jews’. It was led by ‘His Druidic Majesty’, actually Pierre Plantard, who would henceforward refer to himself as ‘Pierre de France’. The servant’s son began to imagine that he had noble ancestry and to take the first steps towards creating his strange tale of mystification.
Dan Brown has obviously not clued himself up on the Plantard of these dark years. He only becomes aware of Plantard during the time of his last and most successful ‘brainwave’, which dates from the years after the Second World War: the creation of the Priory of Sion. Almost from the very first line of his book, in his preface (entitled ‘The facts’!), Brown writes: ‘The secret society of the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099 after the First Crusade. In 1975 parchments were discovered at the Bibliothèque Nationale under the name of ‘Dossiers secrets’, in which appear the names of certain members of the Priory, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo Da Vinci’ [unofficial translation]. This is not true. The Priory of Sion does not go back as far as the Crusades, but actually only to 7 May 1956! That was the day when Pierre Plantard, who was then living at Annemasse, went and filed the order’s articles of association. In a provincial sub-prefecture! At Saint-Julien-en-Genevois, in Haute-Savoie! So where is the ‘chivalric order charged by Godefroi de Bouillon’ (so says Professor Brown) with finding and protecting ‘secret documents buried under the ruins of the Temple of Solomon’ with the help of the Templars, and later the Cathars? The Priory of Sion is nothing more than a club established under the Law of 1901. Though it may refer to itself in terms of the traditions of mutual assistance of ‘ancient chivalry’ (Plantard was still cultivating the same obsessions as he did under the German Occupation) its principal aim was… to ‘defend the rights and freedom of council house tenants’! It survived for a few months by publishing a journal called ‘Circuit’ (an acronym standing for ‘Chevalerie d’Institution et Règle catholique indépendante et traditionaliste’!), which dealt with such problems as ‘water meters and the tarmacadaming of footpaths’ in some of the properties in Annemasse.
Gradually, however, Plantard would pad out the legend of his Priory. So much so in fact that, in 1993, he would come face to face with his Grand Inquisitor in the form of Thierry Jean-Pierre. Plantard had inundated him with letters to inform him that the businessman Roger-Patrice Pelat, a friend of President Mitterrand and the man at the centre of a case being investigated by the former magistrate, had been Grandmaster of the Priory. Thierry Jean-Pierre remembers the police search of Plantard’s house and still laughs about it. ‘He was an idiot!’ The incident did however lead to articles being published in ‘Minute’ (‘Une société secrète dans l’ombre de Mitterrand’ -‘A secret society in Mitterrand’s shadow’) (1) and ‘France Soir’ (‘L’étrange piste de la société secrète’ - ‘The strange trail of the secret society’) (2), articles that asked in all seriousness whether the Priory wasn’t being used to launder Pelat’s money! Plantard had therefore succeeded in finding several credulous or malevolent ears to listen to him. And he himself had finished up believing a tale that he had himself created. How? By making himself part of a myth that would ensure him a small place in the annals of esotericism. Since the end of the 1950s all the world’s treasure hunters, occultists, diviners, Rosicrucians, ‘alchemists’, Cabbalists, ‘cryptographers’, worshippers of the Holy Grail, astrologers, ufologists (specialists in flying saucers) or members of ‘secret societies’, with Plantard at the head, would sooner or later undertake a pilgrimage to Rennes-le-Château, a tiny village in the middle of nowhere about 40 kilometres from Carcassonne, not far from some Cathar ruins. They were in search of the secrets of Abbé Saunière (the same name that Brown gives to the curator of the Louvre in ‘The Da Vinci Code’). It’s said that this curé became very rich after undertaking building works in his little church through discovering, in one of the pillars of the altar, some parchments that led him to the Templar treasure or that of the Cathars or that of Blanche of Castile. Or all three at once perhaps – there are different versions of the story (3).
Plantard then had a brilliant idea. Together with an erudite aristocrat blessed with a lively imagination, the Marquis de Cherisey, he ‘manufactured’ the parchments which had allegedly been found by the curé. Forged parchments that provided details of the royal ancestry of Plantard (who – noblesse oblige – had added ‘de Saint-Clair’ to his name), the foundation of the Priory of Sion in 1099, and a list of grandmasters (Leonardo Da Vinci et al). In a nutshell: all the ingredients of ‘The Da Vinci Code’. Plantard and Cherisey even lodged their forgeries with the Bibliothèque Nationale in the mid-60s! These were the famous ‘dossiers secrets’ that Dan Brown refers to in his preface as irrefutable proof of the Priory’s existence! Long before him, in 1967, a Frenchman, Gérard de Sède, a friend of both Plantard and Cherisey, used the ‘dossiers secrets’ as the raw material for several books, including ‘L’Or de Rennes’ or ‘La Race fabuleuse: extraterrestres et mythologie mérovingienne’! Gérard de Sède, a former journalist, created a cult based on Surrealism. He liked to use a phrase of André Breton’s which just about sums it up really: ‘L’imaginaire, c’est ce qui tend à devenir réel’ - ‘The imaginary is that which tends to become real’. His books rapidly became something of a cult in themselves and the legend of the Priory of Sion would reach its apogee in the 1970s.
It would however be several years before Brown got involved. This was due to three Brits, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln and Michael Baigent, all of whom were steeped in esotericism and fascinated by Plantard. ‘I attended their first interview with him’, says Jean-Luc Chaumeil, the author of several books on the paranormal (5). ‘It was really surrealist. They greeted him with the words ‘Hello Your Majesty’’. In 1982 the Three Stooges published a weighty tome entitled ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ (6). The book dealt with the history of the Priory of Sion and ‘its role in the building of Europe and in international politics and high finance’ (sic), to which the trio brought a new touch: the theory that the Merovingians were in fact the great-great-grandchildren of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Even Pierre Plantard did not go as far as that. In the USA and Great Britain the book topped the best sellers’ lists for months. It’s an example of conspiracy literature which tries to link Nostradamus and Alain Poher, General de Gaulle and Louis XIV, and which tells us that ‘today’s world needs a genuine leader’. In their interpretative fervour the three ‘investigators’ see ‘signs’ everywhere. So a Michelin road map has a hidden meaning. An administrative circular becomes a palimpsest. One thing leads to another and eventually one of the most terrible distortions in history – that of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion (the famous forgeries published in 1903 which fostered the myth of an ‘international Jewish conspiracy’) – also creeps into the story. The three authors say that the Protocols are based on authentic texts emanating from the Priory of Sion, texts that had simply been redrafted to distort ‘their original sense’, which had nothing to do with the Jews but rather with secret or Masonic societies! That’s a theory that’s been doing the rounds for years in certain esoteric circles and also among certain extreme right wing movements, as the historian Pierre-André Taguieff points out (7). And it’s a copy of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ that we find in the library of Dan Brown’s heroes, regarding which he has this to say: ‘The authors have mixed in some dubious elements with their analyses, but the basis of the book is perfectly serious’ [unofficial translation]. This is a reference by Brown to his forerunners – and the only one. As for Plantard, Brown never even mentions them in his interviews. He has, however, adopted all the theories of Baigent et al (while displaying genuine savoir-faire in eliminating some of their more obvious clangers – the ‘dubious elements’ to which he refers). To what extent does Brown himself believe in what he has written? As he explains on his website: ‘In my book I reveal a secret that has been whispered down the centuries. I did not invent it. It’s the first time that this secret has been revealed in a popular thriller. I sincerely hope that ‘The Da Vinci Code’ will serve to open readers’ minds to new lines of speculation. For, since the dawn of time, history has always been written by the ‘victors’’ [unofficial translation]. Is he saying that we have to re-examine and reassess the entire story? Or is Dan Brown adopting this position simply to keep popular interest in best seller alive? He’s already announced a follow-up to the adventures of Professor Robert Langdon in which, apparently, Freemasonry will be mentioned. In the interim, a certain Gino Sandri has taken up the cudgels from Plantard. The new ‘secretary’ of the Priory of Sion explains that the forgeries created by his boss were actually a red herring ‘intended to distract attention, so as to protect certain other documents’ (8) and an even more sensational secret.
(1) 13 October 1993.
(2) 27 October 1993.
(3) ‘Abbé Saunière got rich simply by trafficking in masses’, states Jean-Jacques Bedu, author of ‘Rennes-le-Château. Autopsie d’un mythe’, Ed. Loubatières.
(4) Robert Laffont.
(5) ‘La Table d’Isis ou le Secret de la lumière’, Editions Guy Trédaniel.
(6) Pygmalion.
(7) Author of the ‘Protocoles des sages de Sion: un faux et ses usages dans le siècle’, Berg International, 1992.
(8) On the Rennes-le-Château website.
By Marie-France Etchegoin
Priory of Sion Archives of Paul Smith
Site Meter
From: Tribune de Genève
http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/toute_info/geneve_et_region/da_vinci_code__16.html
A best-seller is inspired by an old swindle
originating in Annemasse.
‘The Da Vinci Code’: the key to an enigma is lying in a cupboard
at the sub-prefecture in Saint-Julien-en-Genevois.
by ALAIN JOURDAN
Published on 16 September 2004
As masterstrokes go it was certainly quite a masterstroke. Since it first came out, sales of the novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’ have not dipped once. With a print run of 10 million copies worldwide, the French translation of the novel by American Dan Brown, which has been available in France and Switzerland since March, has already sold 400,000 copies. Behind this incredible literary success lies an esoteric intrigue which is itself a blend of fact and fiction. The book itself is a devilishly effective thriller which begins with the murder of the Curator of the Louvre. The victim is found lying in a strange position, completely naked, with his arms and legs spread out, and surrounded by pictograms. The disposition of the body is reminiscent of the Man of Vitruvius, the famous drawing by Leonardo Da Vinci. Columbia Pictures have already acquired the film rights, announcing that Ron Howard will be the director and that the leading man will be Russell Crowe. While we’re waiting for the film to come out we’ve got the book to be getting on with.
The descendant of Christ
Reviving the familiar theme of plots and conspiracies, Dan Brown has his heroes setting off in search of a forbidden truth, a profound secret of which the Templars were the guardians. To solve the puzzle they have to decode the messages sent by the initiates down the centuries. It’s a treasure hunt that leaves everyone breathless.
The austere walls of Westminster Abbey and the flagstones of the Church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris are presumed to hide precious secrets. In the novel the key to the puzzle is found in one of the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. Beneath the master’s brush lies a face, that of Mary Magdalene, the sinner.
For the purposes of his novel, Dan Brown has exhumed the old story of the Priory of Sion, an order of chivalry created in 1099 by Godefroy de Bouillon. Its members alone knew the true story of Christ. If they revealed what they knew to the world then the whole edifice of Christianity would start to totter. It’s a myth that’s setting esoteric circles alight. After his crucifixion, Jesus fathered a child by Mary Magdalene. The Merovingians were their descendants and the last ‘recognised heir’ was a certain Pierre Plantard who died in February 2000. For several months now, tour operators have been organising round-trips between Paris and London to satisfy the curiosity of readers exhilarated by the story. And what if it was all true? The details are certainly disturbing and the reasoning spellbinding. However, Dan Brown’s novel simply reworks a gigantic fraud that’s now already 50 years old.
Plantard, the prisoner of his past
To lift the veil on this mystery it’s not necessary to open the doors of the Vatican archives. The statutes of the famous secret society were actually lodged with the sub-prefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois in June 1956. Pierre Plantard (the descendant of Christ!) created an association under the Law of 1901 (the Swiss equivalent of a non-profit-making organisation) along with a number of friends. A certain Pierre Bonhomme was listed as the President, with Plantard as Treasurer. The only thing is, it’s not a secret society at all, but a tenants’ association set up to defend the interests of council house tenants in Annemasse. The organisation’s title refers not to the Sion of the Bible, but to Mont-Sion between Annecy and Geneva. The association’s organisational structure is reminiscent of the boy scouts. The head of it is called ‘His Druidic Majesty’ and the rank and file are grouped around ‘phalanges’.
The stench of anti-Semitism
Employed as a draughtsman at the Chamorin works in Annemasse, Pierre Plantard, a mythomaniac with a keen interest in esotericism, amused himself by rewriting the history of Christianity and inventing a genealogy implying divine descent. To give some credibility to his story he argued that the treasure discovered by the Abbé Saunière at Rennes-le-Chateau was an apocryphal document precisely establishing the genealogical tree of the Merovingians since the death of Christ. The only thing was, the document he produced to support this claim was actually a forgery.
Author Jean-Luc Chaumeil was the first to uncover the fraud at the end of the 1970s. He found that Plantard was a prisoner of his past.
The grandmaster of the Priory of Sion was also the founder of a much more controversial organisation known as Alpha Galathe [sic]. Its statutes stipulated that Jews were not admitted to membership. Plantard was not just a mythomaniac. During the German Occupation he published, under the name of ‘Pierre de France’, an anti-Semitic periodical called ‘Vaincre’. Some English researchers, fascinated by the myth of the Priory of Sion, discovered during their investigations that on 17 December 1953 Pierre Plantard was sentenced by the magistrate’s court in Saint-Julien-en-Genevois to six months imprisonment for breach of trust. Before the success of the novel, CBS had already broadcast a documentary. The subject is apparently inexhaustible, and certainly promises literary and cinematic success to other people as well. Since the end of the Second World War all the investigations into the Priory of Sion have focused on Switzerland, where the majority of the Neotemplar orders are based.
‘The myth has grown to terrifying proportions’
French journalist and author Jean-Luc Chaumeil (1) is extremely familiar with the story of the Priory of Sion. His books on the secret of the Templars and the mystery of Rennes-le-Château brought him into contact with the mysterious Pierre Plantard on several occasions. Chaumeil was the first to dispel the myth and show it for the lie that it really is. The polemics concerning the authenticity of the documents attesting to the existence of a secret society charged with guarding the secrets of Christianity have had the esoteric world in turmoil for more than 30 years.
The controversy took a new turn in 1982 with the appearance of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ by English authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, a staggering investigation into the presumed links between the Priory of Sion and the Order of Malta, the First National Bank of Chicago, the Vatican, the Masonic Lodge P2, the CIA, President De Gaulle and President Mitterrand! It served only however to deepen the mystery still further. Today there are about a dozen secret societies laying claim to the title of Priory of Sion.
‘A fantasist of genius’
Since the appearance of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ several newspapers have exhumed the troubled past of Pierre Plantard. For Jean-Luc Chaumeil, Pierre Plantard was first and foremost ‘a fantasist of genius’. ‘The truth’, he explains, ‘is that he was a megalomaniac and a mythomaniac. He’s only been overtaken by other people because he started the whole thing. I was the first person to interview him, in 1972. I had been following this affair for a long time to see what lay behind it. This led me to investigate the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau and the origin of the treasure discovered by the Abbé Saunière. In fact it’s a rather ridiculous story, which only really got off the ground when Plantard met the three English authors of Holy Blood. The lie then assumed quite different proportions. With this new book, Plantard became not just the grandmaster of the Priory of Sion but also the last descendant of the Merovingians, and therefore of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. He protested limply during a programme broadcast on France Inter with Jacques Chancel when I revealed that the statutes of the Priory of Sion lodged in the subprefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois were actually those of a tenants’ association in Annemasse. With ‘The Da Vinci Code’ the myth has assumed even more terrifying proportions – global ones in fact. This guy is now clearly revealed as an accomplished, mischievous and dangerous forger’.
A. J.
(1) Who is about to publish ‘L’énigme de la tête d’or’.
Edipresse Publications SA. All rights reserved.
Priory of Sion Archives of Paul Smith
Rennes-le-Château and
the Bérenger Saunière Affair Chronology
Paul Smith
Preliminary Note: The Rennes-le-Château "mystery" was created during the mid-1950s when Noël Corbu opened a restaurant in the Villa Béthanie and needed a publicity gimmick to attract custom. A lot of the allegations concerning the Abbé Bérenger Saunière (his discovery of parchments, his 1891/92 trip to Paris, his immense wealth, etc) are simply post-1956 accretions – there simply was no "mystery" during the priest’s lifetime. For example, the priest’s Estate was only valued at 18,000 Francs in 1913 by the Crédit Foncier de France when Saunière was desperately in need of money and had asked it for a loan.
1885
Abbé François-Bérenger Saunière appointed parish priest of Rennes-le-Château.
4 and 18 October 1885 - French General Elections
The Abbé Bérenger Saunière delivered a political sermon from his pulpit by reading one of the articles from the local religious paper, La Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne (which ran a series of articles about those elections in its issues, aimed at the ‘enemies of the Church’, dated 13 September, 27 September, 4 October, 11 October, and 18 October 1885).
It is not known which of the above articles Saunière read from his pulpit, but it probably would have been the one dated 11 October that contained the following sentences:
"The victory is not yet complete. The ballot poll, fixed at Sunday October 18, must ensure our triumph or deliver us yet to the keen enemies of the Religion and Fatherland. The moment is thus solemn and it is necessary to employ all our forces against our adversaries. That is our great concern....Yes, let us act, pray, amend ourselves, make penitence; and perhaps we will obtain that this day of October 18, becomes for us a day of delivery".
Saunière would have asked his parishioners to vote for the ‘Union of the Right’, dedicated to the reversal of the anticlerical legislations of the Republican Government and towards the restoration of the French Monarchy – this Party was comprised of a coalition of the Conservatives, the Bonapartists and the Monarchists – with the Monarchists being the most successful part of the coalition during the 1885 elections winning the most Seats.
It was this success by the Monarchists within the ‘Union of the Right’ coalition, by gaining so many extra Seats, that forced the Republic into introducing the Law of Exile in 1886 banishing all the French Royal Heads from France.
[*On 8th February 1884 there appeared the Papal Encyclical of Leo XIII, ‘Nobilissima Gallorum Gens’ (‘To the Most Noble French Nation’, On the Religious Question in France) - addressed to the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of France - mentioning that France was alienating itself from its past Catholic Traditions and that it had to do all it could to restore those values.]
30 October 1885 – Mgr Billard receives a complaint from the Minister of Religion relating to the ‘reprehensible behaviour’ of four clerics during the electoral period of 1885 and asking for their transfers.
15 November 1885 – Mgr Billard responded by stating that Saunière had no intention of attacking the Government, but had the right as the Defender of Religion to read an article from La Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne, "to give advice to the voters of his parish in the presence of anti-Christian anti-Concordat programmes of several candidates of the deputation".
2 December 1885 – René Goblet, the Minister of Religion, wrote to Mgr Billard stating that he had suspended four priests in the Rennes-le-Château region:
B.Saunière, curate at Rennes-le-Château; Tailhan, curate at Roullens; Jean, curate at Bourriège and Delmas, vicar at Alet.
13 December 1885 – Article appeared in La Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne, criticising the suspension of the four priests by the Minister of Religion, mentioning:
"To the long list of priests who became victim of a systematic persecution since the last electoral period, are to be added the names of four priests of the diocese: Jean - Tailhan - Delmas- Saunière. M. the Prefect of the Aude has notified them a Ministerial decision that suppresses their salary, from 1st December 1885. Their Bishop opposed in vain a firm and dignified justification to the accusations carried against them; there was sorrow to see that M. the Minister of Religion didn't take any account of it. The blabbers triumphed. Can they understand the gravity of their fault, seeing the consequences in their respective dioceses of their malevolent denouncement...?"
1885 election results:
Republicans 383 seats; 'Union of Right' 201 seats (Royalists 73 seats; Bonapartists 65 seats; Conservatives 63 seats).
1886
Abbé Bérenger Saunière temporarily transferred to the Seminary of Narbonne for delivering anti-Republican, right-wing sermons during the elections.
Republican Government confirmed the Law exiling the Heads of the Royal Houses from French soil (repealed after the Second World War).
1887
The Royalist politician, Baron de Mackau, instrumental in forming the alliance between French Royalists and General Georges Boulanger, becoming a most important intermediary between the two forces. Royalists hoped to use Boulanger as a ‘battering ram’ to topple the Republic. Boulanger was also backed by Radical politicians hoping to make him into the standard-bearer of constitutional revision in order to create a more democratic Republic.
Bérenger Saunière reinstated at Rennes-le-Château: began renovating his church. New altar (with the help of a donation from Mme. Marie Cavailhé) and stained-glass windows installed in his church.
1889
1889 election results:
Republicans 366 seats; Right 210 seats (Royalists 86 seats; Boulangists 72 seats; Bonapartists 52 seats).
General Georges Boulanger elected in Paris on 27 January – seeking to gain the Catholic vote, offering religious peace and stability within a Republican framework.
("The clergy intervened more openly in the elections than in previous ones, taking a stand against the Republicans, who had just passed the law establishing 3 years military service and obliging seminarists, like students and future members of the teaching profession, to serve for a year. The military law and the educational laws were from then on the Catholics' great subject of protest." - J-M Mayeur & M Reberioux, The Third Republic from its Origins to the Great War, 1871-1914; Cambridge University Press, 1977.)
General Boulanger's speech in Tours on 17 March (written by Naquet): "No one among the conservatives who follows me does me the insult of saying that I support the Republic in order to betray it."
General Boulanger later fled to Belgium following threats of arrest for plotting to overthrow the state – he was tried in abstentia by the Senate sitting at a high court and was condemned to life imprisonment.
On an Episcopal visit to Rennes-le-Château, Mgr Billard congratulated Saunière on everything he had done, consoling him, and encouraging him, in spite of all the difficulties that he had encountered, to try and continue his pastoral ministry.
1891
Monsignor Billard, Bishop of Carcassonne, inherits 1,200,000 Francs from the widow Madame Rose Denise Marguerite Victorine Sabatier of Coursan – not in his capacity as Bishop, but in his own private person (the Bishop was an active anti-Republican).
Pope Leo XIII sanctioned a local Feast of the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, authorising a proper office and mass.
Ceremony 21 June 1891: Statue of Our Lady of Lourdes and the Visigothic Pillar installed by Bérenger Saunière at Rennes-le-Château, in the presence of a Lazarist from the church of Notre-Dame de Marceille. (Père Emmanuel d'Alzon, the founder of the Assumptionist Order, regarded Lourdes as the symbol of the restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy.)
Formation of ‘Union of Christian France’:
'Co-operation of Christians and all respectable people, whatever their political opinions, to defend and demand unanimously civil, social and religious liberties.'
In Toulouse on 19 July, Comte d'Haussonville, representative of the Comte de Paris, expressed the view that it was 'extremely probable' that at the next elections the candidates of the monarchist committees would identify themselves with those of the committees of the ‘Union of Christian France’.
Archbishop of Paris, on 2 March, denounced anti-Christian sects who wanted to make 'a series of anti-religious laws the essential constitution of the Republic'.
General Georges Boulanger died (Saunière noted in his journal for 30 September 1891: "Mort de Boulanger").
1892
Pope Leo XIII calls to French Catholics to rally in support of the Republic, putting to an end the solidarity between the Church and the Monarchists (‘Union of Catholic France’ dissolved soon afterwards).
From 'La Croix':
"Let us attack these unfortunate laws and let us urge all Catholics - royalists, Bonapartists, republicans - to unite their efforts in order to try loyally establish a Christian Republic in France".
'La Croix' accepted the Tricolor but only on condition that the white part bore a picture of the Sacred Heart, the sign of the consecration of the Republic to Christ. – J-M Mayeur & M Reberioux, The Third Republic from its Origins to the Great War, 1871-1914 (Cambridge University Press; 1977).
1893
1893 election results:
Republicans 488 seats; Right 93 seats (Monarchists 58 seats; 'ralliès' 35 seats).
Church of Notre-Dame de Marceille purchased by Monsignor Billard, the Bishop of Carcassonne.
1894
Philippe VIII, becomes the Orleanist Pretender to the French Throne.
The National Pilgrimage to Lourdes was an overtly anti-Republican protest.
1895
Sanctions imposed against Saunière by the local Parish Council on 20 July for his refusal to assist in putting out a fire in the village on 14 July – Bastille Day.
1896
Bérenger Saunière’s selling of masses activities takes-off on a Grand Scale – with it becoming noticed by his superiors at the Bishopric of Carcassonne. Saunière advertised in religious magazines, journals and papers around the world, and the requests for masses just poured in – the priest had cashed-in on a religious activity during the height of the conflict between Church and State in France 1885-1905.
1897
Bérenger Saunière made major additions to his Church – installing the statues of the Saints, the Stations of the Cross, the ornate Baptismal Font, the Holy-Water Stoup, and a Bas-Relief of Jesus Christ on the Mount above the Confessional.
The Baptismal Font depicted the Baptism of Christ, symbolising the restoration of the French Monarchy; whilst the Holy Water Stoup was decorated with the figure of the Devil, symbolising the vanquishing of the French Republic. The imagery was obviously regarded as a preliminary to the forthcoming 1898 French General Election.
Monarchy
Republic
6 June 1897 – Saunière’s church re-consecrated by Monsignor Billard, the Bishop of Carcassonne in the company of R. P. Mercier, a Lazarist priest from the Church of Notre Dame de Marceille.
The Calvary that was installed at Rennes-le-Château contained the opening-line to the French Coronation Anthem: Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat!
Bérenger Saunière was to write to Monsieur Giscard, the supplier of the additions to his Church:
Dear Monsieur Giscard,
Our splendid Pentecost celebrations, which were accompanied by a temporary suspension of our mission and by the visit of our Lord Bishop, have made it impossible for me to acknowledge sooner the receipt of all the items – as rich as they are varied – that your firm has kindly supplied to us, and to tell you something of the effect they have made on the countless people who have seen them. Before a crowd that was much too large for our little church, His Grace cast his eye over all the beautiful items amassed in the House of God: statues, bas-reliefs, pulpits, Ways of the Cross, a font – nothing was overlooked. But what especially caught his eye were the piscina, the font and the bas-relief. He especially liked the last of these, and spent a long time studying it in great detail. He asked me in front of everybody who the artist was who had so beautifully rendered the scene of 'Come ye all to me'. Of course, I told him your name. And then, probably without even knowing you, he started praising you in the highest possible terms in front of all my many colleagues. The next day – Monday – we had some visitors, not only from neighbouring parishes but also from very far afield and, according to many people, news of all these wonderful objects has spread all over the département. Deo gratias! I'm delighted above all for you, Monsieur Giscard, since your name, which is already being passed around among those many colleagues of mine who attended the Pentecost celebrations, is certainly destined to become famous. Thank God, and may your excellent firm prosper even-more. This is what I ask heaven to grant to you all.
B. SAUNIÈRES [sic], Priest.
1898
1898 election results:
Republicans 489 seats; Right 96 seats (Monarchists 44 seats; 'ralliés' 32 seats; Nationalists 6 seats; Révisionists 4 seats; Diverse 10 seats).
Monsignor Billard, Bishop of Carcassonne, struck down with paralysis – having also been suspended from his post for "having administered the assets of his diocese in the most irregular fashion and for having contracted staggering debts, which were completely unjustified" (Simon Laborde, Biographical notice on Monsignor Billard, late Bishop of Carcassonne, 1902).
1899
"At the end of 1899, the diocesan bishop had put Saunière's name forward for approval by the préfet as a 'personnat' [a benefice in a cathedral that took precedence over the canons]. This proposal, as was then the custom, involved an official investigation, which was entrusted to the sous-préfet of Limoux. On 16 October 1899 this official replied to the préfet: "Monsieur Saunière is comfortably off. He has no family responsibilities. His conduct is good. He professes anti-government views. Attitude: militant reactionary. Negative recommendation" (*Arch. Aude, series O. Rennes). Abbé Saunière was not appointed to a personnat." – René Descadeillas, Mythologie du Trésor de Rennes (1974), page 28.
1900
Pope Leo XIII consecrates the whole human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
1901
LAW OF ASSOCIATIONS: promulgated by the French Government according to which no religious congregations could be formed without authorisation from the State. Congregations had to submit an annual list of members, property, and financial status that had to be submitted to the Government authorities on request.
1901-1905
Bérenger Saunière builds his Estate: the Villa Béthanie; the Tour Magdala, the Gardens and Terraces, etc.
1902
1902 election results:
Republicans 465 seats; Right 124 seats (Conservatives 89 seats; Liberals 35 seats).
Monsignor Paul-Félix Beuvain de Beauséjour replaces Monsignor Paul-Félix-Arséne Billard as the Bishop of Carcassonne.
1905
Separation of the Church from State in France. Bérenger Saunière from this moment in time begins to live in poverty, the demise of his success in his selling of masses activities (what little he made from this point on was spent on his future legal fees relating to his Court Battles with his superiors at the Carcassonne Bishopric).
1906
Pope Pius X condemned the separation of the Church from State in France in two encyclicals.
1906 election results:
Republicans 441 seats; Right 174 seats (Conservatives 78 seats; Liberals 66 seats; Nationalists 30 seats).
1907
Pope Pius X extends the Feast of the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes to the whole church.
1909
Bérenger Saunière transferred to Coustouge: replaced by Abbé Marty at Rennes-le-Château. The Town Mayor wrote a letter of complaint in response to the Carcassonne Bishopric, advising the Bishop that the Presbytery would not be made available to any replacement priest.
1910
27 May 1910 – The Bishop’s Court of Carcassonne began an investigation into Bérenger Saunière’s activities at Rennes-le-Château, the bill of indictment referred to:
* Trafficking in Masses
* Disobedience to the Bishop (continuing to request fees for masses outside the diocese despite being forbidden to do so by the Bishop)
* Exaggerated and unjustified expenses (resulting from receiving money for unsaid masses)
Bérenger Saunière refused to appear before the Bishop’s Court on 16 July 1910 – and on 23 July 1910 was suspended of his priesthood for one month, and ordered to return the money that he was not able to say masses for [First Judgement]. Saunière was summoned again to appear before the Court on 23 August 1910 – but he managed to change the date to 15 October 1910 – and was instead represented by his Lawyer Canon Huguet – resulting in Saunière having to appear before the Court on 5 November 1910 – on which occasion Saunière actually appeared, and was sentenced to undertake spiritual exercises for 10 days at a monastery and to appear before the Bishop within one month producing documents of proof relating to his activities [Second Judgement]. It was during the hearing of 5 November 1910 that the following statement was made in the said Sentence:
CONSIDERING that Abbé Bérenger Saunière admits to having requested and obtained a considerable number of Masses, without contesting the figures given by the Official Prosecutor;
This contradicts the claims Saunière made when he provided a List of Donors at his Trial totalling a huge sum of 193,000 Francs that he claimed to have received (including a sum of 3,000 Francs that he had allegedly received from the Comtesse de Chambord!) – claiming to have spent it on the renovations of his church and on the building of his estate – the more realistic estimate would have been in the region of 70,000 Francs, as Saunière himself claimed in the original drafts for his defence – and Saunière could only account for around 36,000 francs of his expenditure at his Trial. The reason for Saunière "inflating" his figures was simple: to divert attention away from a sum small enough to have been gained through the selling of masses.
1910 election results:
Republicans 441 seats; Right 149 seats (Conservatives 129 seats; Liberals 20 seats).
"I don't see what could prevent you from living in Lourdes, as we cannot go to Lourdes this week I am dropping the idea for this year" – Part of a letter to Bérenger Saunière from Abbé Gazel, the curé of Floure, dated 12 September 1910.
5 December 1910 – La Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne announced that Bérenger Saunière no longer had the right to say masses.
1911
The Bishop of Carcassonne issued a strong warning against Bérenger Saunière in February, accusing him of selling masses without his consent and forbidding him to administer the Sacraments.
La Semaine Religieuse De Carcassonne, 3 February 1911.
COMMUNICATION OF THE BISHOPRIC
Relative advice to M. l’Abbé Saunière
Former priest of Rennes-le-Château
Following an account dated 11 December 1910, in the supplement to Nr13 of VEILLEES DES CHAUMIERES, thus: Always as before inform Violette de l’Aisne, that M. l’Abbé Saunière, in retreat at Rennes-le-Château, by Couiza (Aude), France, performs masses at 1 Franc per time and is obliged to receive money for other religious works, literary articles, pamphlets, stamps, etc.
The Diocesan authority of Carcassonne deems it right to inform the faithful of this diocese, and so far as is able to inform other dioceses:
1* That M. l’Abbé Saunière, former priest of Rennes-le-Château, is in no way authorised to demand beyond this diocese, or to receive from other dioceses, money for saying masses;
2* That he has not been given any assignment or authorisation, to undertake or conduct any works whatever having as their objective the (Catholic) Ritual.
Carcassonne, 1 February 1911
On 5 December 1911 the Carcassonne Bishopric imposed a Third and Final Judgement on Bérenger Saunière: after citing a list of indictments against the priest involving disobediences against the Bishop, the following Sentence was passed:
"We condemn the priest Abbé Bérenger Saunière to a suspension a divinis for a period of three months, effective from the day of the notification of the present sentence, which suspension in any case will continue until he has undertaken the restitution into the hands of the rightful owner and according to canon law of the goods misappropriated by him."
Since it was impossible for Bérenger Saunière to return the money that he had accepted for unsaid masses, the three month suspension turned out to be permanent, and the only hope Saunière had was to appeal against the Sentence to the Vatican, which proved unsuccessful (Saunière in fact began protesting to the Vatican about his treatment from 15 October 1910 onwards). Saunière never regained his priesthood following this Sentence.
1913
The Crédit Foncier de France offered Bérenger Saunière a 6,000 Francs loan, having valued the priest’s Estate at 18,000 Francs, after he had asked it for a loan to clear his debts.
1914
1914 election results:
Republicans 475 seats; Right 120 seats (dont Fédération rép. 37; Action liberté 23; divers droite 15; non inscrits 45).
1915-1917
Bérenger Saunière enjoyed a second period of success at selling masses – although not as successful as during the 1896-1905 first period – France was at War and the priest received requests for masses from neighbouring dioceses, despite his interdiction.
1916
Saunière undertakes a pilgrimage to Lourdes.
1917
Bérenger Saunière died: his suspension from priestly duties only being lifted in articulo mortis ("at the moment of death"). He was not described as a priest in the Obituary column of Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne dated 27th January. Marie Dénarnaud could not afford to pay for his coffin until 12 June 1917. Claims that Bérenger Saunière was immensely rich in 1917 and had ambitions to undertake another building project were the inventions of Noel Corbu during the 1950s.
1925
The Testimony of Monsieur Espeut from Perpignan:
"...I would like to state that the Abbé Saunière never found any treasure. You see, I was actually born in Espéraza. My family knew the Dénarnaud family. In 1925, when I was 14 years old, I used to go up regularly to Rennes-le-Château. I used to go and see Marie Dénarnaud. She was living in rather pitiable circumstances. I did my harmony lessons on the organs in the salon, which have now disappeared. In the library of the Tour Magdala, I read all the correspondence of the priest with his ecclesiastical lawyer at the time of his trial at the court of Rome. It was by collecting money for saying masses that the Abbé Saunière was able to construct his estate. He published small ads in the Catholic press throughout the world. I was able to read their texts, and I have seen thousands of replies. I would also like to state that, between the ages of 15 and 20, I thoroughly searched the area within a 500-metre radius of the Villa and the Tour Magdala. I never found the slightest evidence of a hidden treasure. I am telling you this out of respect for the truth..." (Midi Libre, 13 February, 1973).
1946
Marie Dénarnaud bequeathed Saunière’s Estate to Noel Corbu.
1949-1954
Jean Bousquet village schoolmaster at Rennes-le-Château, and a lodger with the Corbu family. His testimony:
"As for Mademoiselle Marie, she has, on each and every occasion, evaded the questions that I was able to put to her regarding, in particular, the source of Saunière's fortune. And yet, for 5 years, we even took our meals together at the table of Monsieur and Madame Corbu (who had been kind enough to offer me lodgings). Since I am mentioning Monsieur and Madame Corbu, let me say that I cannot ever praise their generosity and their kindness highly enough. They looked after Mademoiselle Marie with a great deal of affection, and for me they were the most charming of hosts. I shall always revere their memory." (Cited by Gilbert Tappa in Les Cahiers de Rennes-le-Château, volume 3; 1989.)
1953
Marie Dénarnaud died aged 85 – Corbu inherits her archives relating to Bérenger Saunière.
1956
The Beginning of the Myth of Rennes-le-Château: Albert Salamon’s La Fabuleuse Découverte du Curé aux Milliards de Rennes-le-Château (La Dépêche de Midi 12, 13 and 14 January) – claiming that Saunière had discovered a treasure – using Noel Corbu as his source.
1958
Robert Charroux unsuccessfully scanned Rennes-le-Château for gold and jewels using a metal-detector. The beginning of the Pilgrimages to Rennes-le-Château by those duped into the now-quickly escalating post-1956 myths and legends.
1959
Jacques Cholet, a Professor from Paris, undertook official excavations in the church of Rennes-le-Château, yielding negative results:
"On my own account I excavated both under and behind the altar but found nothing. I also excavated in line with and in front of the altar – again nothing.….I was also made to tear up the floor of the church, starting from the pulpit: my sponsor, a pendulum enthusiast, had located the entrance of the underground passageways there – but we found nothing. I persevered as far as the foundations of the church, digging as far as virgin soil. We found the outline of numerous empty vaults. We resumed the same task along the south wall, with approximately the same result, the only difference being that all the human remains, which were missing on the other side, had been placed there higgledy-piggledy. On the advice of a female clairvoyant we were urged to excavate behind the altar – but found nothing." (Cholet's Report, dated 25 April 1967.)
1962
Noel Corbu’s Essai Historique sur Rennes-le-Château – a five paged manuscript deposited in the ‘Archives de l’Aude’ in Carcassonne – being a possible transcript of a 1955/1956 tape-recording made for the guests to Corbu’s restaurant in the Villa Béthanie.
1964
Saunière’s Estate sold by Noel Corbu to Henri Buthion (Corbu was later killed in a car accident in 1968).
1967
Gérard de Sède’s L’Or de Rennes – primary addition to the myth-making process – the impact of which was to last for decades, despite its rebuttal by Monsignor George Boyer, the Vicar-General of the Bishopric of Carcassonne, who also wrote: "That the Abbé Saunière could have received the last sacraments two days after his death is absolutely incredible. And that dear old Abbé Rivière, the curé of Espéraza, who died in 1929, and who was the Dean of Coursan (where I got to know him well) never smiled again after the death of the Abbé Saunière, to whom he had administered extreme unction, is another puzzling statement, as I myself saw him roar with laughter."
1974
René Descadeillas, Mythologie du Trésor de Rennes: Histoire Veritable de L'Abbé Saunière, Curé de Rennes-Le-Château (Mémoires de la Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne, Annees 1971-1972, 4me série, Tome VII, 2me partie; 1974). [Reprinted in 1991 by Editions Collot, Carcassonne.]
1983
Jacques Rivière, Le Fabuleux Trésor de Rennes-Le-Château! Le Secret de L'Abbé Saunière (Editions Bélisane; 1983).
1985
Pierre Jarnac, Histoire Du Trésor de Rennes-Le-Château (L'Association pour le développement de la lecture; 1985).
1985
Claire Corbu & Antoine Captier, L'Héritage De L'Abbé Saunière (Editions Bélisane; 1985).
1987-1988
Pierre Jarnac, Les Archives De Rennes-Le-Château, Tome 1 & 2. (Editions Bélisane; 1987-1988).
1989
Abbé Bruno de Monts, Bérenger Saunière, Curé à Rennes-Le-Château 1885-1909 (Editions Bélisane;1989)
1989
Formation of Association Terre de Rhedae – devoted to the history of Rennes-le-Château with its then President, Claire Corbu-Captier, also being the Curator of the ‘Saunière Museum’.
1990
Jean-Jacques Bedu, Rennes-Le-Château: Autopsie d'un mythe (Ed. Loubatières; 31120 Portet-sur-Garonne; 1990).
1996
Vinciane Denis, Rennes-Le-Château, Le trésor de l'abbé Saunière (Editions Marabout, Collection "les Grands Formats"; 1996).
2003
Excavations conducted beneath the Tour Magdala on 20 August 2003 by Professors Eisenman and Baratollo in search of treasure yielded negative results – the project dated from April 2001 and was based upon taking seriously the myths and legends about Bérenger Saunière found in pseudo-historical books. The scholars had overlooked titles by René Descadeillas (1974), Abbé Bruno de Monts (1989) and Jean-Jacques Bedu (1990).
Bérenger Saunière’s "wealth" is a myth that first originated during the mid-1950s. Saunière’s entire estate was only valued at 18,000 Francs by the Credit Foncier de France in 1913 when Saunière had asked it for a loan because by that time he did not have enough money to even buy food.
This was not the first time that Abbé Saunière had asked for a loan in order to eat. Abbé Saunière lived in poverty for most of his life except for the period between 1896-1905 and we have the relevant paperwork to prove it – Abbé Saunière lived from the selling of masses during the years 1896-1905 and the paperwork for that exists as well.
Monsignor Billard, Abbé Saunière's Bishop, was far more wealthier - he inherited over a million Francs in 1891 from a rich widow and he too, lived from selling masses and, like Abbé Saunière, was eventually to become suspended from his sacerdotal duties over allegations relating to financial impropriety within the Church.
Pierre Plantard was a lifelong charlatan and confidence trickster – his 1937-1954 activities involving confidence trickery, anti-semitic and anti-masonic activities are provided in File Ga P7 which is available for public inspection at the Paris Prefecture of Police, 9 Boulevard du Palais, 75195 Paris (Monsieur Claude Charlot, is the Director of Museum Archives of the Bureau of Associations at the Paris Prefecture of Police, for written enquiries).
References to Pierre Plantard’s criminal convictions are available for public inspection at the Sub-Prefecture of Saint Julien-en-Genevois, 4 Avenue de Geneve, 74164 Saint Julien-en-Genevois, Haute-Savoie (Monsieur Serge Champanhet, is the Secretary General of the Sub-Prefecture, for written enquiries – the letter dated 8 June 1956 by the Mayor of Annemasse to the Sub Prefect contained in File Number KM 94550 which holds the 1956 Priory of Sion Registration Documents must be cited in the written enquiry).
Pierre Plantard’s Judicial Archives are held in the Tribunal de Grand Instance de Thonon-les-Bains. But these unfortunately are not available for public inspection due to the French Privacy Law.
Pierre Plantard got into serious trouble in 1993 with Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre because he claimed that Roger Patrice Pelat was a "Grand Master of the Priory of Sion" - and the Judge was heading an investigation into Pelat’s activities that involved financial improprieties - it was following this incident in September 1993 that Plantard ceased his Priory of Sion activities and lived out the rest of his life in isolation.
Site Meter
Google
Search Web Search priory-of-sion.com
THE TOMB AT LES PONTILS – THE REAL TRUTH
Paul Smith
It is still uncritically claimed today by many people that the tomb that once existed at Les Pontils was depicted in a painting by the French artist Nicolas Poussin - in his 'Shepherds of Arcadia' (the second version painted sometime around 1640). Those who make this claim usually state that the landscape at Les Pontils behind where the tomb once stood matched the landscape depicted in Poussin's painting (the tomb was destroyed by its owner Mr Roussett on 9 April 1988, with the agreement of the Peyrolles Municipal Council, unable to tolerate any longer the trespassing on his property from unwelcome treasure seekers).
So what is the real truth?
Having visited the spot in 1993, I can categorically state that the landscape at Les Pontils does not match the one depicted in Poussin's painting, and those who make such a claim are seriously wrong - the landscape at Les Pontils situated behind the spot where the tomb once stood features the hills of Grand Bergue, Las Tostonas, Cardaussel and Quirautier; not Bezil Grand or Blanchefort. What is more, this claim is usually made by people who have never visited the area in the first place. Certain claims made in certain books are also plainly wrong and can be considered as being downright dishonest. To put the record straight on this matter: no serious French researcher on Rennes-le-Château accepts that the landscape at Les Pontils matches the one depicted in Poussin’s painting. The very first person to make the link between the tomb at Les Pontils with the one in Poussin’s painting was Pierre Plantard during the early 1960s as part of his ‘Priory of Sion’ mythology.
In 1878, the scholar Louis Fédié wrote an article about the folklore and mythology of the Peyrolles area (Étude Historique sur le des Haut-Razès, in Mémoires de la Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne, Vol. 4 pp. 42-92), and his starting point in his article was the area of Les Pontils itself, because it contained a menhir – the oldest man-made structure found in the area – and he failed to mention the existence of any tomb (incidentally the tomb was located in the Peyrolles area and not in Arques, another common mistake).
So what was the real origin of the tomb?
The French author Pierre Jarnac has investigated this most thoroughly and has published his findings. In ‘Histoire du Trésor de Rennes-le-Château’, published in 1985, Pierre Jarnac wrote:
"This tomb, which is almost hidden by trees, was erected on the edge of a cliff, up by a little bridge that passes over the bed of a stream (now dried up) known as 'Le Cruce'. It can be seen quite clearly from the road to Arques.
It takes the form of a parallelepiped [geometric solid whose six faces are parallelograms], surmounted by a truncated pyramid.
The story of how it came to be there, a story that people have felt it necessary to falsify for their own murky reasons, is actually quite simple.
Set back from the site of the tomb we find the Moulin des Pontils ('Les Pontils Mill'). In 1880 this property was purchased by Louis Galibert, who came to live there with his wife Elisabeth. He had a plan: to transform this large house into a factory for the manufacture of epaulettes and braid for the use of military tailors.
As this little factory was located close to a watercourse, which was at that time in full flow, he constructed a barrage and placed there a dynamo to provide power for his factory and his several machines.
In 1903 the grandson of M. Galibert had a grave dug and a tomb [sépulture = burial place] constructed there by the stonemason Bourrel, from Rennes-les-Bains, on a hillock located some fifty metres from the road. The following year the remains of his grandmother were transferred there.
Twenty years passed before the Galibert family left for Limoux and sold their little estate. In 1921, Louis Galibert had the remains of the bodies that had been laid in the tomb of Les Pontils removed, since his wife Elisabeth, who had died several years before, had been buried there in her turn. A new tomb in the cemetery of Limoux would soon provide a home to the two bodies. The gate and the facings in freestone of the tomb of Les Pontils were removed and used to cover the tomb in Limoux.
Shortly afterwards, the buildings of Les Pontils were put up for sale. They were bought by Madame Emily Rivarès, a French woman born in Paterson in the United States and her son, Louis Bertram Lawrence, born on 25 October 1884 in Hartford (Connecticut). His father had been born in Amsterdam in the Netherlands."
In ‘Les Archives de Rennes-le-Château’, published in 1988, Pierre Jarnac wrote:
"His – Louis Lawrence’s – grandmother, Marie Rivarès, died on 28 November 1922, the year after moving to Les Pontils. In accordance with the wishes of the deceased, the body was…embalmed!
It was there in the tomb [sépulture = burial place] prepared originally by the Galibert family that Louis Lawrence buried the body. Some time later, in 1931 or 1932, he did the same thing upon the death of his mother, Emily Rivarès, whom he laid to rest in the tomb [tombeau = tomb] with the remains of two cats, also mummified!
It was then that there was erected, on this site, a tomb [tombeau = tomb] in parallelepiped form, surmounted by a truncated pyramid. The whole structure was covered by a screed of cement. Nothing therefore served to distinguish it from those numerous funerary monuments that, at this time, one could still see in large numbers along the roadside."
So the tomb that once existed in Les Pontils was only built in 1933 by Louis Lawrence to contain the dead bodies of his mother, grandmother, and two mummified cats. Previously it had been a grave containing the corpses of the Galibert family.
Pierre Jarnac obtained his information from Adrien Bourrel, the second son of Louis Lawrence. And the stonemason Bourrel who dug the first grave in 1903 was related to the common-law wife of Louis Lawrence. Quoting Pierre Jarnac from private correspondence: "As for the year 1903 it was not the 'tomb' strictly speaking that was constructed in that year but only the 'basic' tombstone [dalle funéraire] covering a grave. The actual tomb - in other words the parallelepiped that bore so much resemblance to the tomb of Poussin - was only built around 1933".
info@priory-of-sion.com
Priory of Sion Archives of Paul Smith
Prince Michael of Albany alias Michel Lafosse - a charlatan according to a Report commissioned in 1980.
Paul Smith
Belgian Michel Lafosse, who has been calling himself "HRH Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart, 7th Count of Albany", was first exposed as a fraud in 1980 – long before the publication of Laurence Gardner's book Bloodline of the Holy Grail in 1996.
A Private Report done by Jack S MacDonald to test the claims of Michel Lafosse was commissioned in 1980 – by a group of the Scottish Patriots which included Wendy Wood, A.J.Stewart, Nigel Tranter and others. Being told fairy stories by his Grandmother is what seems to have inspired Michel Lafosse into becoming the future "Prince Michael of Albany".
Below is the Transcript of Jack S MacDonald's Report, with a link to the photocopies of his original Report.
REPORT REGARDING EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIM OF
MICHAEL JAMES STEWART OR MICHAEL ROGER LAFOSSE
DATED 1 JUNE 1980
The Original
1.
The Claimant arrived in Scotland in August 1976. He approached several organisations and individuals, presenting papers which he alleged supported his contention that he was a direct descendant of Charles Edward Stewart.
The claim is based essentially on two sets of papers; the first set, it is maintained, is the result of secret researches in the archives of the Vatican State which are explained on letters and other documents and signed by Martino Giusti, Prefect. The other set of papers is from Belgium, the Claimant's birthplace. In addition, he says he has other papers in his Swiss bank.
This enquiry is founded only on the following documents which are in my possession:-
From Belgium:
(All papers marked* are "originals" signed in ink)
Photocopy 1.
Birth Certificate
Photocopy 2.
Extract Birth Certificate*
Photocopy 3.
Extract Marriage Certificate
Photocopy 4.
Statement Villa Bruxelles District 2 (2 pages)
From the Vatican State:
Photocopy 5.
Letter from Martino Giusti, Prefect, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, dated 11 December 1978.
Photocopy 6.
Statement dated 13 December 1978, signed by Martino Giusti, confirming the divorce of Charles Edward Stewart Princess Maximillian Stollberg Gedern and his subsequent secret marriage to Margareth Dee. Also shows the issue from this and later marriages down to the Claimant.
Photocopy 7.
Letter from Martino Giusti confirming descent of Margareth Dee from the Stewart line, dated 13 January 1979.
Photocopy 8*
Letter from Martino Giusti dated 23 March 1979.
Photocopy 9*
Letter from Martino Giusti dated 25 May 1979.
Photocopy 10*
Letter from Martino Giusti concerning the Pope's visit to Ireland, dated 26 July 1979.
Photocopy 11
Letter from Martino Giusti to Claimant's representative in Ireland sent c/o the Claimant - with previous letter (photocopy 10).
Photocopy 12*
Statement, undated but signed in ink and enclosed with previous letters (photocopy 10), (photocopy 11). 2 pages.
2.
Three Certificates.
Photocopy A. Papal Dispensation dated 1783
Photocopy B. Marriage Certificate dated 1783
Photocopy C. Baptism Certificate dated 1958.
THE BELGIAN PAPERS
With regard to the birth certificate (photocopy 1), I wrote a letter to the department in Watermael-Boisfort, Brussels, responsible for its issue, enclosing a photostat copy. The pertinent paragraph of my letter was:
"Would you kindly let me know if this is a true copy of your records or not, and IF NOT please let me have a copy of the certificate to which No.549 refers".
In return I received an extract birth certificate No.549 (Photo.3)
There are several fundamental differences between the information given on the two documents, the most important concern the names of the Claimant and his mother.
On the certificate presented by the Claimant, the names appear as Prince Michael James Stewart, Comte d’Albanie, and his mother as Princess Renee Juliana Stewart. On the extract birth certificate from Brussels, they appear as Michel Roger Lafosse and Renee Julienne Dee.
In due course, and in the presence of witnesses A, B and myself, the Claimant was asked to justify the apparent differences in the documents, and in reply he maintained that there existed two birth certificates with the reference No. 549, one issued at birth without titles and one issued at age 18 with titles. The reason being that in Belgium one does not legally accede to titles until reaching majority. Furthermore, as his descent from the Stewarts was through his mother's side he would naturally be represented by his father's name, Lafosse, on the earlier birth certificate.
He was asked to note the inference in my letter to Belgium, which asked for a true copy of the certificate referring to 549 if the photocopy enclosed was not a true copy. As they had sent me a different document, it therefore implied that the certificate which the Claimant had presented was not a true copy. The Claimant considered that the Belgian authorities had made a mistake.
On 29 February 1980 I sent a follow-up letter to the same department (photo.14). The relevant passage in this was:
"...the document I received from you was for Michel Roger Lafosse. This person is now claiming the existence of two birth certificates bearing the number 549, one for Michel Roger
3.
Lafosse and one for Michael James Stewart. Can you confirm the existence of two certificates, or is the one for Michael James Stewart a forgery?"
The communication received in reply (photo.15), was signed for the Mayor of Watermael-Boitsfort. "In reply to your favour received on 4 March 1980, this is to certify that, as you supposed, the birth certificate for Prince Michael James Stewart is a forgery."
* * * * * * *
The Claimant has stated both orally and in writing that, on 21 April 1976, in the church of St Lambert in Brussels, he went through a ceremony arranged by the Protestant and Catholic Churches attended by several European Royal Families. This ceremony he called his "Dynastic Entry".
In August 1979 witness A phoned the Claimant and asked him to produce certain papers. (Transcript of this conversation photo 16). The papers requested were:
1.
The documents on which his Dynastic Entry was registered in the Brussels archives.
2.
Papers to prove that this ceremony took place.
3.
Copies of every document held in the Swiss bank.
As at May 20 1980 none of these documents have been produced by the Claimant.
On March 16 1980 I wrote to the Church of St Lambert, Brussels. (Photo 17). The relevant passage of the letter was:
"Mr Lafosse tells us that the Vatican and the Protestant churches together organised a ceremony for him in your church on April 21, 1976. This ceremony was called his "Dynastic Entry" and was attended by many important people including representatives of several European Royal Families. Would you please inform me if this event truly took place or not?..."
The reply to this was written and signed on the margin of my letter, beside the relevant paragraph: "Dear sir, Not in our Church!" There was also a card written and signed by the same hand. (Photo 18). "Excuse sir, but I have not the practice in English correspondence. The answer is right."
* * * * * * * *
In June 1979 the Claimant received a document in the form of a two-page statement from L'Officier de l'Etat Civil de la Ville de Bruxelles (photo 4), purporting to show that his father was also in line of descent from the house of Stewart.
4.
In April 1980 I wrote to the Officier de l'Etat Civil, enclosing photocopies of the document and received in reply, the letter as shown in photocopy 19. The following is a translated extract:
"Referring to your letter in which you ask me to confirm the authority of a document concerning Mr Michael Lafosse, I have the honour to advise you that this document is false."
"...being given these facts I am passing your letter, also the photocopy of the document to the king's prosecutor for possible proceedings."
* * * * * * *
THE VATICAN PAPERS
There are ten documents in my possession which are alleged by the Claimant to have been sent by the Vatican. Four of these are "originals" signed Martino Giusti in ink or biro.
These "originals" are produced on inferior quality plain paper without watermarks, the coat of arms of the Vatican is printed in black ink and there are no reference numbers. It must be stated at this point that Msgr Martino Giusti is indeed the Prefect in charge of the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.
Msgr Grady, the Vicar General of Edinburgh, in a conversation with witness C and myself, stated emphatically that these letters were forgeries for the following reasons:
1.
The difference in paper quality.
2.
The lack of any watermark which is always present in genuine Vatican letters.
3.
The abysmal English grammar which would not be permitted to be sent from what is, in effect, a centre of diplomatic influence.
4.
The coat of arms is always printed in blue ink.
Witness A wrote to the Archivio Segreto in 1979 and was replied to on heavy quality paper, strongly watermarked and with the coat of arms printed in blue ink. In my possession I have a copy of a letter sent by Msgr Giusti to Mr E H Stewart-Hill of New York (photo.21). On both these letters there is a reference number and the English is impeccable. On E Stewart-Hill's letter Msgr Giusti says:
"...I can state quite categorically that these letters were not sent from this office and that the signature they bear is not mine".
In July 1979 the Claimant gave into my possession two letters from Martino Giusti, one a photocopy and one an "original" signed in ink, also a two page report likewise signed in ink and depicting the basis for the Claimant's titles. (Photocopies 10, 11 and 12).
5.
One of these letters was addressed to the Claimant's representative in Ireland at that time, and he is referred to as "Witness D".
These papers contain more grammatical errors and on the "originals", clearly discernible underneath the ink signatures, can be seen traces of pencil marks following the line of the ink. Here one must ask – for what reason would someone write his name in pencil and then write it again in ink over the top?
There is an added significance to these papers as they make direct reference to the Pope's visit to Ireland, and express the Pontiff's wish to be met on Irish soil by the Claimant. It was on seeing this that I called on Msgr Grady, the Vicar General of Edinburgh who examined the papers and in the presence of witness C and myself, phoned a "high-ranking" representative of the Vatican State who was staying in London and explained the situation to him.
Meanwhile, in Ireland, witness D approached the Papal Nuncio with the letter containing the Pope's "expressed wish" to meet the Claimant. The Papal Nuncio's reaction was to inform witness D that the letter was a forgery.
Another point regarding the Vatican papers is worth mentioning. It concerns the signature of Martino Giusti on the letters (photo.5) and the second page of the statement (photo.6). If one signature is superimposed over the other with a light shining from the back, e.g. held against a window – it will be seen that they fit each other precisely. Trials with friends with names of a similar length showed that, without tracing, it would require an extraordinary coincidence to achieve this result. In fact, none of my friends came anywhere near doing so.
The three certificates (a), (b) and (c) are crudely presented using, for the most part, a Gothic or Old English typeface, produced in a modern typefoundry and which is known under various names depending upon which company is responsible for producing it. The characters are uniformly precise although the alignment in "papal Dispensatio" on (a) and "Michael James Stewart" on (b) shows they have been "set" by an amateur. Compare the capital M for example in the word "Magnae" in (a) with the M's in "Most" in (b) and "Michael" in (c). They are exactly the same apart from the type-size. They do not show the slight variations which would be apparent if they had been produced by different typefounders.
We are therefore asked to believe that the Vatican in 1783 produced two certificates using type from the same typefounder as the Church of St Lamberts in Brussels (Protestant) used in 1956 for a baptism certificate.
6.
Father Edwards, who is a historian of the Jesuits, with a special interest in the history of the House of Stewart and a Latin scholar, has stated that the Latin in (a) is not of the right period. We must also ask why is (b) written in English? In any case it would be expected that one-off documents concerning a Papal Dispensation or secret marriage of a royal couple would have been hand lettered.
The view has been expressed by some of the Claimant's supporters, that despite the fact of forged documents, his claim may still be genuine. In fairness to this point of view I will quote from a letter encapsulating their arguments.
"The young gentleman – Michael James – is disappointing, and his dishonesties and intrigues are indefensible. However, it may be that knowing that certain people are in the position to advance his claims – and are unwilling to do so openly – that he made it appear that those persons were, in fact, advancing his claims. There are those who will say that certain papers are forgeries; in the strictest sense this is probably true. However, if it is a case of a young man having incontestable truths at hand, truths that others will not vouchsafe with paper warrants, he may well feel obliged to issue his own paper warrants, making them appear as if they had come from some respected authority. Therefore the real question is, if the papers, wherever they emanated from, contain incontestable truths – are they really forgeries?
"I am amazed that despite the enormity of the claim, and therefore the enormity of the fraud, nobody has seen fit to take legal action against the young gentleman. The Vatican, the Court of St James, the Lion Court of Scotland, and the Court of the House of Orange all seem to have a case if the young gentleman is a false claimant; yet none has seen fit to act against him, this despite the fact that he has been quite open in his activities."
There is some logic in this argument, however, we now know that the Belgian State (photo.19) have threatened legal action and in fact the police have already visited the Claimant's mother in this respect.* (see footnote). Also Martino Giusti has implied action by "higher authorities".
* Footnote. On 10 May 1980 the Claimant phoned me to ask if I had written to the Belgian State regarding his papers. On replying that I had, he became very angry and said that the police had been to see his mother and she was very upset. He told me I had no right to do such a thing and threatened me with court action. I replied that he had no right to distribute forged literature and surely he was aware that his documents would have to be verified. He reiterated his intention to prosecute and rang off. As yet there has been no solicitor's letter.
7.
In October 1979 I discussed with the Claimant the concern which was felt by some of his friends regarding the validity of his documents. We agreed to send a letter written and signed by him to Marino Giusti which would be sent c/o my address and posted in my presence. (photo.23).
This was executed on November 2 1979, although I must admit to losing sight of the envelope during the walk from my house to the postbox.
When one remembers the high regard and even deferential terms with which Martino Giusti had allegedly written to the Claimant in the past it must be considered remarkable that to this letter Msgr Giusti did not reply at all.
The following January the Claimant, together with witness E and myself again discussed the dilemma. We made careful and specific arrangements to repeat the exercise. The Claimant was to write a covering note to be included with the original letter and phone me to collect them from him at his place of work. I was to seal the letters in a registered envelope and post the package personally.
Approximately two weeks later I phoned the Claimant to find out why he had not yet complied with the arrangement. He replied that he had already sent the letter.
This total disregard for an arrangement which was evolved as much to protect the Claimant's credibility as to instil confidence in his supporters raised more serious doubts as to his honesty. There was no question of a misunderstanding. He has supplied me with a certificate of posting (photo.20) which is genuine, but of course this only proves that an envelope was sent. There has been no reply from the Vatican to this letter either.
The Claimant would have us believe that this is the first time the Vatican have not replied to him, and it may be asked why another forged letter was not produced to fill the gap. In this context it should be remembered that anything other than a letter on official Vatican notepaper with watermark would not have been acceptable.
* * * * * * * *
It must be agreed from available evidence that all the Claimant's documents used as a basis for this report are forgeries. Perhaps good enough to be accepted at face value, as did many of us at first, but not convincing when subjected to close scrutiny.
The question now posed is:-
Was the Claimant aware of, or indeed responsible for these forgeries?
8.
That he was aware of the forged birth certificate was indicated on the occasion when he made a deliberate attempt to explain the first denial of the Belgian State (photo.13) by the lie regarding the existence of two birth certificates.
With regard to direct responsibility, please refer to photocopy 22, which is a typed letter from the Claimant addressed to my family. It is dated 14 December 1978 immediately under the signature which is in biro. Observe the triangular flourish underneath the M in Michael and compare it to the one on the signature of Armand Deseager on page 2 of photocopy 18. This M can also be compared to the M in Martino Giusti's alleged signature on photocopy 9.
The most convincing point, however, concerns the highly individual method of inserting punctuation marks. Note the position of full stops and commas in the letter typed by the Claimant and compare this to the typing on the alleged Vatican letters or the Belgian papers. Also compare these to the two genuine letters from Martino Giusti to E Stewart-Hill of New York and myself (photos. 21/25) which place the punctuation marks normally.
Clearly the personal letter to my family, the Vatican papers and Belgian documents were all typed by the same person.
Finally I turn to the question of the claim of Michael Roger Lafosse to direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart, for although the Claimant's papers, both from the Belgian State and from the Vatican are seen to be and have been stated by both authorities to be false, there has as yet been no categorical denial from the Vatican (the alleged source of the information upon which the claim is based) that the claim itself is false.
On April 18 1980 I wrote to Msgr Giusti at the Archivio Segreto for clarification pn this point (photo.24). The following extract is pertinent:-
"...there still remains some ambiguity; for although we are of the opinion that the documents are forgeries, you do not state this categorically in your letters, neither do you deny the existence of any evidence in the Secret Archives which would support Mr Stewart's claim. The unfortunate result of this is that Mr Stewart and his supporters, as an excuse, claim that the Vatican are not at liberty to divulge information concerning this matter, except to Mr Stewart himself, and that the ambiguities in the letters from yourself are concerned with "political diplomacy". It is also pointed out that no action has been taken against Mr Stewart for the unauthorised use of
9.
your letterhead and the forging of your signature if, in fact, this is the case.
On 30 May I received a reply from Msgr Giusti dated 22 May 1980. (photo.25).
The characteristics of this document are:
1. Large clear watermark in the form of the Papal coat of arms.
2. Blue coat of arms at top lefthand corner.
3. Heavy bond paper.
4. Impeccable English grammar and sophisticated construction of sentences.
The pertinent passage reads:
"For your clarification I wish to specify that Mr Stewart has managed to duplicate by photocopy the letterhead and stationery of this archive. He forged my signature, copying it from my letter of denial that I sent him in 1978 in response to his request as to whether there existed in the Vatican, documents testifying to his presumed princely titles.
"I add in closing – and I think this will please you – that I have already notified higher authorities of the behaviour of the aforementioned Mr Stewart."
CONCLUSION
1.The Claimant known as Michael James Stewart, also Michel Roger Lafosse is responsible for producing and distributing forged documents which purport to show his direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart. This is demonstrated by the letters from the Belgian State and the Vatican State declaring certain papers as false. That the Claimant is responsible for these forgeries is conclusively proved by the evidence regarding the unique punctuation system in all papers including a letter signed by him.
2.There is no foundation to his claim of direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart. This is conclusively proved by the receipt of a letter from Msgr Martino Giusti, Prefect of the Secret Archives of the Vatican (photocopy 25) which denies any evidence of such claims.
This report must therefore find that the Claimant is a forger and a fraud.
Jack S MacDonald (signed)
1 June 1980
priory-of-sion.com
No comments:
Post a Comment