Above shows a picture of Jean-Luc-Chaumeil holding up what he
alleges is Pierre Plantard's confession that Philippe de Cherisey was the author. This was shown in the TV programme
'History of a Mystery. The first anomaly to point out is that the two pieces of
paper are clearly different and that the bottom parchment (The Dagobert
Parchment) has the word 'Photocopie' clearly written by Pierre Plantard. Shown
below:
If this bottom document is a
photocopy where is the original?
Philippe de Cherisey NEVER confessed publicly to writing the
parchments or as far we know to the writers of 'Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail' and the 'The
Messianic Legacy'. Although in The Messianic Legacy the authors do
say that they had heard that the parchment had been faked, they give a large
treatise as to why they think this may not be correct.
But for now we only have this allegation of de Chèrisey's
authorship from Jean Luc
Chaumeil AFTER de Chèrisey's sudden death. This apparant admission by de
Cherisey comes from a document which Chaumeil calls 'Stone
and Paper'. Chaumeil still refuses to have this Stone and Paper document
scrutinised by independent experts.
Whilst this Stone and Paper is de Chèrisey's handwriting it
is most likely the paper referred to on page 154 of 'The
Key to the Sacred Pattern' written by Henry Lincoln.
Extract
from 'The Key to the Sacred Pattern by Henry Lincoln describing a meeting with
Philippe de Cherisey. (pp154)
QUOTE
"The day is
ending, but it is fine. De Cherisey expresses a desire to take a stroll and a
lengthy preambulation end on a bench in the Tuileries Gardens. He is still
regaling me with well told - and often very funny - anecdotes. But I have more
on my mind than entertainment. We are getting on well and the atmosphere is
friendly. At last, with time passing and nothing to lose, I decide to put my
request baldly. 'Can I take another look at the parchment photographs?' With
only minimal hesitation, he opens his briefcase and hands them to me. 'Why add
the marks' I ask 'To amuse the laity' he replied 'But why?' I insist. He
shrugs 'I'm an entertainer.' It is clear that I am to get no straight answers.
But - perhaps simply because it was to hand - he adds another fragment.
Picking a few sheets from his case, he says: 'I'm writing an explanation of
the codes. I'll send you a copy. You'll be amused' But I am never to see
it. 1 Nor am I ever to get any closer to the 'parchment originals'.
Sadly Philippe de Cherisey died suddenly in July 1985.
1 There is
reason to suspect that this document may have been part of the haul of stolen
Priory papers' which figured in the Chaumeil imbroglio"
END OF
QUOTE
It is indeed clear that it is this document (apparently stolen)
that Jean Luc Chaumeil is touting as Philippe de Chèrisey's so-called
confession. The author of this website is prepared to defend this allegation
should it be necessary assuming that the present owner of the document called
Stone and Paper is prepared to offer
proof that he is the legitimate owner of the document
and also the precedence of this document. i.e. That it genuinely came
willingly from
Philippe de Cherisey.
Pierre Plantard said that Philippe de Cherisey had only made
copies of the parchments which Pierre Plantard referred to as de Chèrisey's
'confections'. It was even admitted that de Cherisey altered them and put his
own markings on them. Also according to Plantard the originals apparently found
by Saunière formed different sides of the same parchment and somehow interacted
with each other as parchment tends to be transparent when held up to the light.
There are NOT two separate sheets on the originals. Jean Luc Chaumeil showed two
separate sheets. These are merely de Chèrisey's COPIES.
It is NOT possible that Philippe de Cherisey could have been
the original author of the second (shepherdess) text and so as these two pieces
of text where on the same sheet then it's highly unlikely he wasn't the author
of the Dagobert text either.
Here we have several passages from Philippe de Chèrisey's
book CIRCUIT were we find him reaching for an answer.
"The
presence of Teniers in the message indicates a path to follow from the church of
RLC to the church of Saint-Luc, a village further north. This is inferred from
two anecdotes concerning the painter, the robe of his procurator, his trade
association. Teniers' last painting shows a procurator wearing a black robe.
When asked about his health, the ageing Teniers said he had burnt his last tooth
to get the ivory black of the robe. In his youth, Teniers held the position of
master of St Luke's brotherhood in Antwerp, which gathered all painters.
Some details in the church play on this:
a/ at the foot of Mary Magdalene, there is a skull with one tooth missing and a
cross engraved on top
b/ the procurator of the church is Pontius Pilatus, shown in the first station
of the Cross. In Rennes, the procurator washes his hands in the white basin held
up by a black boy.
The village of Saint-Luc and its church are at the foot of the Mort mountain as
is the cross on the skull at the foot of the Magdalene. Since the first station
of the Cross leads to Golgotha, i.e. the mountain of death, we therefore have an
itinerary from the church of RLC to the church of Saint-Luc. One could object
that this itinerary is contrary to Teniers' biography, who went from youth to
old age, along with the procurator when he was admitted to St Luke's
brotherhood. In fact, one must travel the path backwards, since Teniers is duke
of Antwerp."
Here we have a man clearly
reaching for an answer. If he was supposedly the author he would not need to
reach.
Here is the proof of Philippe de Chèrisey's innocence of
being the author on two
points.
Here is the relevant parchment:
The passage shows a passage of Latin written in Greek Uncial
style writing. Incidentally this text appeared in the public domain in 1889
this does not mean it was created at that time and a copy of it may have been
around in Leiden in 1633.
What is immediately obvious is that this writing carries
extraneous lettering not found in the Latin text (these roughly occur every
seventh letter but there are exceptions to this rule). The passage depicts
a passage from the gospel of John chapter 12 verses 1 to 11 where it talks
about the incident depicted on a stained glass window inside the sacristy of
Rennes le Chateau church where Mary Magdalene anoints the feet of Jesus:
John 12:1-11 (K J V)
1
Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where
Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2
There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was
one of them that sat at the table with him.
3
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and
anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the
house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
4
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son,
which should betray him,
5
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given
to the poor?
6
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was
a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
7
Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying
hath she kept this.
8
For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
9
Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and
they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus
also, whom he had raised from the dead.
10
But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also
to death;
11
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and
believed on Jesus.
The curious drawing appears on the bottom right of the parchment:
It is also worth noting that this Latin Text at the bottom
of the parchment originally appeared below the bas-relief of Mary Magdalene
under the altar at Rennes le Chateau which shows her in a cave crying in front
of the rugged cross.
This was destroyed by a vandal in 1970 and was never
restored.
The untidy mark in the middle of
N Q I Ѕ
is almost certainly a crude drawing of this rugged cross
depicted in the bas-relief .
On the left is Noel Corbu pictured pre 1970 showing the bas
relief of Mary Magdalene underneath the altar and a repetition of the phrase
from the bottom of the parchment that was later destroyed by a vandal.
This shows that the author of the parchment was aware of this
phrase prior to 1970. Also it shows that as this bas-relief was done by Saunière
the parchment in it's present form could not have been made prior to his
renovation of the church. Therefore unless this phrase on the parchment was
borrowed from a previous display the parchment is unlikely to have been around
in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The phrase is bad Latin the phrase:
"Jesus, you remedy against our
pains and only hope for our repentance, it is thanks to Magdalene's tears that
you wash our sins away."
Is probably the best guess.
However for this to be correct the Latin
should be:
JESU VULNERUM MEDELA + PAENITENTIUM
UNA SPES
MAGDALENAE LACRYMAS + PECCATA NOSTRA
DILUAS
Sauniere was an accomplished reader of
Latin and it therefore becomes intriguing as to why he should make such a very
obvious error right underneath the altar and additionally intriguing as to why
the same mistake was made on the parchment.
*****************
To continue with the parchment code
These extraneous letters found in the text, 140 of them, form
a complex code. These letters are depicted below (this is a copy from the book 'The
Holy Place' by Henry Lincoln.) This in turn was taken directly from the book
written by Gérard de Sède called 'Le
Tresor Maudit'.
V
C P S J Q R O
V Y M Y Y
D L T
P o h R B
O X T
O D J L B
K N J
F Q U E P
A J Y
N P P B F
E I E
L R G H I
I R Y
B T T C V
x G D
A D G E N
E S A R E T H
L U C C V
M T E
J H P N P
G S V
Q J H G M
L F T
S V J L Z
Q M T
O X A N P
E M U
P H K O R
P K H
V J C M C
A T L
V Q X G G
N D T
The first thing of interest is AD
GENESARETH in plain text in the middle 12 letters and these are firstly
removed. It means 'Towards Galilee'. Interestingly this piece of paper (shown
below) was left in a book once owned by the Abbe Bigou, former cure of Rennes le
Chateau who is believed by some to be the author of the parchments.
It says:
"......US of Galilee is not here."
This is very old French and the translation may
not entirely be correct.
The beginning of .....US is missing and is open
to speculation.
You can see the name Bigou on the original page
to which this piece of paper is now stuck on the right about two thirds the way
down.
Philippe de
Chèrisey does not mention AD GENESARETH in his so-called confession as to why
this is included nor indeed does he mention that it is included at all. Curious
that he should confess to making the parchment but not explain the meaning of
this nor indeed even acknowledge that it is there.
The extraneous letters written in small type
are supposed errors made by the author and corrected by Gérard de Sède. It is
clear that de Sède did
not understand how the code was made but was only given a crude method of
decryption by persons unknown. The code does not need to be corrected and the
original author did NOT make a mistake. For Gérard de Sède used a 26 letter
alphabet (presumably told to do so by Philippe de Chèrisey for his decryption
who got it wrong too)
whilst the original author had used a 25 letter alphabet for encryption. The
French did not adopt a 26 letter alphabet until about 150 years ago indicating
the possibility that the original author wrote the code more than 150 years ago.
When the 12 letters in the centre are removed and it leaves 128
letters and these are arranged into two groups of 64 letters. Then the Tableau
de Vigenère Code is applied. The method is shown
here.
The keyword is MORTEPEE this is taken allegedly from a
tombstone of Marie d'Ables d'Hautpoul Countess of Blanchefort. For the record it
doesn't matter in the slightest from where this came. MORTEPEE is the word taken
from the number of mistakes on the tombstone.
Using the key and the Tableau de Vigenère the first
letter V is therefore cross referenced to the letter M of MORTEPEE and is
therefore changed to the letter I and so on.
The result (according to Gérard de Sède that is who
apparently got this method direct from Philippe de Chèrisey) is:
I Q H M N
G V S I M E R C S P
Y
C S X L F
E B Y B R B F F A R
N
R F M Y T
P N C A E H U J T M
I
Y G Y B M
Y V C N I L V A J K
H
Y J T V A
C Y I V V H H T V X
A
D Y Z A Q
B J Y F K B F D G Q
Y
B L R H T
T Q Z C V C I V F O
L
I Y T G G
P Y P I F O A K D H
Y
The next stage is to substitute the letter
with the letter that follows it in the alphabet so that A becomes B, B becomes C
etc. This leaves:
J R I N O
H X T J N F S D T Q
Z
D T Y M G
F C Z C S C G G B S
O
S G N Z U
Q O D B F I V K U N
J
Z H Z C N
Z X D O J M X B K L
I
Z K U X B
D Z J X X I I U X Y
B
E Z A B R
C K Z G L C G E H R
Z
C M S I U
U R A D X D J X G P
M
J Z U H H
Q Z Q J G P B L E I
Z
The next stage the Tableau de Vigenère Code is applied once
again only this time using the entire headstone text:
To make up the prerequisite 128 letters the phrase PS PRAECUM
is added this and this can be found on the other tombstone which contains the phrase ET
IN ARCADIA EGO written in Greek lettering:
However something incredible happens here because it has
been found that the phrase on the tomb is a direct anagram of the final result
with PS PRAECUM removed.
This new key is applied to the Tableau de Vigenère only the
tombstone text + PS PRAECUM is this
time applied reversed and the result is:
V M K R O
Z M M Z R H S S H Z
S
D V Q Q O
A S D T B Z D D M H
Q
V S F D D
M C D K N Q R H Z Z
N
D K D E R
C P Q O D C B T O F
V
Z H D L T
H C N B D I C M L D
F
L B N B D
D O C R G Q V Z H Z
C
G Z S L N
Z D R D A H B D K D
Q
M D D Z H
D D C K U D T K C
B
Stage 4 is like stage 2 except the letter is shifted down the
alphabet. Gérard de Sède's original 26 letter alphabet version necessitated a
two-letter shift at this stage to make it work clearly confirming that these
supposed authors of the text didn't know how to decrypt what was apparently
their own creation.
The result is as follows:
X N L S P
A N N A S I T T I A
T
E X R R P
B T E U C A E E N I
R
X T G E E
N D E L O R S I A A
O
E L E F S
D Q R P E D C U P G
X
A I E M U
I D O C E J D N M E
G
M C O C E
E P D S H R X A I A
D
H A T M O
A E S E B I C E L E
R
N E E A I
E E D L V E V U L D
C
The next stage a very clever and elaborate encoding
technique is applied. The 128 letters of the text are divided up into two blocks
of 8 x 8 squares
X
N
L
S
P
A
N
N
A
S
I
T
T
I
A
T
E
X
R
R
P
B
T
E
U
C
A
E
E
N
I
R
X
T
G
E
E
N
D
E
L
O
R
S
I
A
A
O
E
L
E
F
S
D
Q
R
P
E
D
C
U
P
G
X
A
I
E
M
U
I
D
O
C
E
J
D
N
M
E
G
M
C
O
C
E
E
P
D
S
H
R
X
A
I
A
D
H
A
T
M
O
A
E
S
E
B
I
C
E
L
E
R
N
E
E
A
I
E
E
D
L
V
E
V
U
L
D
C
This then uses a technique called the 'Knight's
Tour' which makes the knight touch each and every square only once
taking with it the letter on that square to square it moves to.
So we have:
f6-e4-d6-c4-e5-c6-d4-e6-c5-d3-c1-a2-b4
a6-b8-d7-f8-h7-g5-h3-f4-g2-e1-c2-a1-b3
a5-b7-d8-fy-h8-g6-h4-f5-e3-d5-c3-e2-g1
f3-h2-g4-h6-g8-e7-c8-a7-b5-a3-b1-d2-f1
g3-h1-f2-d1-b2-a4-b6-a8-c7-e8-g7-h5
This operation finally yields the well known passage:
BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA
CLEF PAX DCLXXXI PAR
LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU J ACHEVE CE DAEMON DE
GARDIEN A MIDI POMMES BLEUES
The reader is reminded that after this incredible process
the final result is an anagram of the Hautpoul tombstone plus the phrase PS
PRAECUM.
The chances of this occurring by accident are greater than a
billion to one.
De Cherisey does allude to this fact in the document held by Jean Luc
Chaumeil called Stone and Paper. He says:
"...wouldn't
it be prodigious if, at the end of all this work, we could but
reconstitute the funerary text? Prodigious and perfectly stupid... May our
reader rest assured: another text is to be discovered and it is an anagram of the tombstone."
And:
"Common opinion
has it that Abbé
Bigou, parish priest of RLC in 1781 and author of the epitaph, also
composed this amusement. Such is not our opinion:
the anagram was composed in our time
and includes a signature which we shall discover when analysing the
decoded text."
De Cherisey does NOT admit he composed it here, indeed he says it is an
opinion. How can it be merely an opinion if he was the author?
Another letter touted as Philippe de Chèrisey's so-called confession is this
one:
Here de Chèrisey says quite clearly that he is the
author of the SOLUTION to the code. i.e. BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION quoted
on pages 20.21 of his book. The lawyer agrees that de Chèrisey's SOLUTION
shouldn't be used by another author (in this case Gerard de Sède). This in no
way represents de Chèrisey admitting to writing the original code. He also
curiously says it in English, who is this confession aimed at? Certainly not the
lawyer who wrote the letter shown underneath who is clearly a French speaker.
An overemphasis methinks.
Please be aware of this slight of hand used by the
detractors.
New Evidence
A new piece of evidence has come to light
regarding the Hautpoul Tombstone in the form of a document (cover shown right)
dating from 1906.
In 1905 a member of the
Société d'études scientifiques de
l'Aude' (Scientific Research Society of the Aude), produced in their volume XVII
in the year 1906 an account of a visit by Monsieur Elie TISSEYRE to Rennes le
Chateau and Rennes les Bains. The visit took place on the 25th June 1905.
In the document Tisseyre describes
in very fine detail his visits to the area and his visit to Saunière's Church
and gardens the point of interest here is translated here below.
The Church (1740) [St
Mary Madeleine, Rennes le Chateau] soon loomed ahead of us. The
interior was superb, with attractive paintings exuding freshness and
charm. We looked for some signs of the past there, but in vain. But in
a small garden adjoining the church one of us recognised a crudely
sculpted (or rather engraved) tombstone as dating from the 5th
century; it was unfortunate that this tombstone was being used as a
step of a staircase and was therefore exposed to all the
inclemencies[sic] of the open air. It would have been better if it had
been placed inside the church where it could with advantage have taken
the place of some varnished or gilded panel or other.
We also noted, in
another small garden, a stone plinth supporting a statue of the
Virgin. This plinth, very old and of beautiful workmanship, had been
retouched on the pretext of giving it a higher relief: on the
contrary, in doing so the workman had deprived it of any trace of
artistry and had destroyed the preciousness of this ancient piece of
sculpture.
A visit to the
cemetery enabled us to discover, in a corner, a wide tombstone,
broken
in the middle, on which one could read a very crudely engraved
inscription.
This tombstone measured 1.30
metres by 0.65 metres.
‘Here lies the
noble Marie de Nègre D’Arles, La Dame d’Hautpoul de Blanchefort, aged
sixty-seven, died 17 January 1781, May she rest in peace’
But then someone came
to remind us that it was time for lunch, which was served in one of
the rooms of the Castle. The meal was certainly of the better
standard. An excellent mocha rounded off the festivities and the first
part of our programme. We thanked M. Auguste Fons for his hospitality
and, at the suggestion of M. Fages, elected him a member of the
Society to a round of applause
On the right is a
reproduction of Eugene Stüblein's
drawing of a tombstone in his book Pierre Gravées du Languedoc. Notice that the
drawing has
a crack down the middle and Stüblein's signature is in the bottom
right hand corner. Notice that the tombstone spells what should be 'd'Ables' - d'Arles and the dimensions are the same as the defaced tombstone currently in
the Rennes le Chateau museum. This shows that the Hautpoul tombstone was around
in 1905 and as the inscription is a direct anagram of the final 'Bergere pas de
tentation........' message. Then it shows that the parchment is unlikely to have
been made in the 1960s.
Summary
De Chèrisey was using a 26 letter alphabet when a 25 letter alphabet is the only
one that yields the correct decryption.
He never explained what he meant by AD GENESARETH.
The tombstone (called by de
Cherisey - the funerary text) was around in
1905.
Conclusion
Philippe de Chèrisey wasn't the author of the parchments.
The document called Stone and Paper (shown at the beginning of this page) is
merely Philippe de Chèrisey's attempt to solve the Shepherdess code.
FOOTNOTE:
JEAN LUC CHAUMEIL HAS RECENTLY RELEASED A BOOK SAYING THAT HE PROMISED PHILIPPE
DE CHERISEY THAT HE WOULD TELL THE TRUTH TWENTY FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH AND
THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY MADE UP THE WHOLE THING REGARDING
THE PARCHMENTS.
THIS IS TYPICAL CHAUMEIL. HOW DID THEY BOTH KNOW THAT CHAUMEIL WAS GOING TO LIVE
ANOTHER TWENTY FIVE YEARS?
THE READER IS REMINDED THAT JEAN LUC CHAUMEIL HAS BEEN CAUGHT OUT IN THE PAST
FOR TRYING TO SELL A FAKE DOCUMENT.
THE TIMING OF THIS HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF DAN BROWN'S BOOK - THE DA
VINCI CODE - THAN ANY PROMISE MADE TO PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY.
