A strange document, signed "de Cherisey"

 

Another forgotten “secret” document?

De Cherisey is a very colourful person. He is also a very controversial person, identified as the puppet master who invented, then controlled the Priory of Sion circus.
Though Pierre Plantard has almost become a household name and many details about his life are known, little is known about de Cherisey. One of the few people to devote a few lines of ink to him was the French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who seems to have been little more than a man who interviewed de Cherisey and later received certain documents from him, but whom never really became a close friend of this Belgian nobleman.

Recently, friends de Cherisey approached us, giving us certain information about the man and his writings, which were not yet in the public domain. The documents are not part of the material that was deposited in the French National Library, the infamous “Dossiers Secrets” that cemented the myth of the Priory and the mystery of Rennes-le-Château. Instead, they involved writings that seemed to be of a more personal nature, closer to de Cherisey’s heart.

Searching for cover

The document in question has on its first page – which also appears to be its cover – the number 123, suggesting 122 previous bulletins have been issued. Still, it would appear issue 123 is actually the first, if not the only, that was ever produced. Immediately below, we can read "Absolu 107", with no context or information which would provide an explanation what the "absolute" would be, or what the number 107 refers to. We could add the two numbers together, give us 230, but the obvious question there is “so what?”.
The third line reads “(vulg. Septembre-octobre 1979), obviously the date. It suggests that the publication is bi-monthly, which would mean that if 123 issues had already appeared, the first issue would be published approx. twenty years earlier, or 1959. As to the abbreviation “vulg.”, it is believed to refer to “vulgaire” – vulgar – potentially meaning that they are using the ordinary calendar system as compared to a more sacred calendar, like that of some organisation or society, such as Freemasonry. Indeed, Freemasonry sometimes uses a different calendar system, of its own.
Even though this publication may be using a sacred calendar, there are few possible indications as to what the sacred calendar might be – except the above “Absolu 107”? Of course, another possibility is that the use of the word “vulgar” – like “Absolu 107” – is merely hocus pocus so that the reader may think that this publication is created by “initiates”.

At the bottom of this “cover” – which may be an apt name in more than one sense of the word – is the address, where the reader can take out a subscription.
Finally, let us note the title of this work: “A A R E V U E”. That it is a “review” is plausible. As to the double AA in front of it – we are no doubt predisposed – and no doubt incorrectly so – to immediately ponder the possibility whether this provides us with inroads into the AA, that enigmatic secret society. Below, for the address, the name is rendered as “AaRevue”, rendering the second a in lower case, unlike the title, which is typed in capitalisation, and hence does not allow for such a distinction. But this “correct spelling” better underlines the distinction between the two words: “Aa” and “Revue”. Is this the Revue of the AA - Aa? And if so, is it the type of membership journal that AA members receive – since 1959? It is but one of a myriad of possibilities.

Finally, let us note that the typed pages have the old commercial page format of 21x27 and that, apart from the small illumination on the final page, the 25 pages (including the cover), there are no illustrations. As far as we are aware, there is no legal deposit of this document, neither under the name Marquis/Philippe de Cherisey, nor AaRevue.

The conditions of taking out a subscription

On first analysis, the publication appears to have nothing to do with Philippe de Cherisey, which may be why, for many decades, it was not directly linked with him. Instead, the main person behind this initiative goes by the name of “Richard Tialans” – an unlikely name and a potential pseudonym. Still, out of four published articles in the issue, three are by de Cherisey, suggesting he is its most active provider of contents – if not only provider and editor, but having used pseudonyms to make it appear that this is not a one-man show.

So, as with the Dossiers Secrets, whereby Plantard and crew used several pseudonyms, Tialans could be a pseudonym. Equally, could this publication be part of the same campaign? Or a similar campaign? Use similar or identical techniques, that is to say pretend that these documents are “secret”, but in truth careful disinformation, though not without a specific purpose, and sometimes not without important elements, which are then given a new twist – which is of course what disinformation is. And in this mixture, as is known from the Dossiers Secrets, few have been able to weed out the disinformation, to retain the information. In fact, judging from the success of The Da Vinci Code, in which Dan Brown is merely the final product of two decades of obsession with the Priory of Sion, it seems “we” have fallen for the misinformation.
With that in mind, we need to be extra careful not to fall for any potential traps that de Cherisey may have laid within the pages of this publication.

From the Aabsolute 107 to ‘Pataphysics

123 issues. It is a remarkable feature and we should greatly applaud the editorial team for years of dedication and perseverance. But it is remarkable that if there were 123 issues (if not more after this September 1979 publication) that no-one has ever heard of it or made reference to any of its previous issues – not just within the context of Rennes-le-Château, but within the larger context of “esoteric France”. Are we already confronted with the first “disinformation” by de Cherisey?

When we spoke about this document to one of our closest and most trusted members, he gave us a vital clue. It revolved around the word “Absolu”, which perplexed us at first, as it seemed to be without sense. We thought along the lines of “Absolute” and other possible interpretations, but he stated that though the context allowed for a capital A, we should actually see it as a proper name – not an adjective. And, indeed, the fleeting thought that the “vulgar calendar” might have a sacred equivalent, in which Absolu 107 was a date, turned out to be true: Absolu, we learned, was the first month of a calendar by “Père Ubu” – Father Ubu – i.e. Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) – and to be absolutely precise (pun intended): the “’Pataphysical” calendar. We note that the apostrophe in front of the letter P is intentional. However, why it is there, is not known.
This discovery was very important. But what did it mean? The very definition of the word, according to Jarry, was as follows: “Pataphysics is the science of imaginary solutions, which symbolically grants to the features the properties of the objects described by their virtuality.”
Confused? Michael Balmont explains that pataphysics is an intellectual discipline invented by Alfred Jarry. Balmont makes several attempts to explain, but he seems to settle on explaining it as the science “of that which is attached to metaphysics” which in itself of course is already a further elaboration of physics. Confused? It seems that whereas physics deals with hard reality, and metaphysics dealt with the idea of the soul and the spirit, pataphysics dealt with the realm beyond that, of the imagination, a virtual world, that of thought.
It also operated on an inversion of the normal paradigm: “Instead of adhering to the law of gravitation towards a centre, doesn't one prefer that of the rise of the vacuum towards a periphery?” It poses in absolute the equivalence of the opposites: "the maximum speed is resting." (Samuel Beckett)
Ubu is in their interpretation both God and the Devil. And it is hence obvious that this discipline is at the same time both utterly serious, and totally laughable – absolutely absurd and philosophically essential.

Ubu, God and the Devil

We might indeed laugh about such theological frameworks, were it not for the fact that inversions, in the story of Saunière and some of the discoveries in his church in Rennes-le-Château, were not so riddled with inversions – and mirrors. Furthermore, what are we to make of this grotesque king Ubu, whom is both considered to be the centre and the exterior, whom represents both God and the Devil. What are we to make, in this context, of the devil Asmodeus, whom on his wing has the name “Jesus” written? And what are we to make of the fact that Alfred Jarry provides his “father Ubu” with a mistress, and gives her the name Madeleine – Magdalene? Does it not sound similar to that old Cathar ideology, in which they too believed that there was an “other god”, to use the words of Yuri Stoyanov, whom was deemed to be female, and which in the region of the Languedoc, by the local Cathars, was apparently identified with Magdalene – who herself had taken over certain sites that in origin were sites dedicated to Venus.
But let us not forget how we got here: through the existence of another calendar – the pataphysical calendar – which operates according to a different timeline. The “Magazine Littéraire”, in its June 2000 edition, even announced a detailed study of the system.

The first two months of the Pataphysical era

Alfred Jarry

When did the Pataphysical Age start? September 8, 1873. It did not mark a special celestial event – it marked the birth of Alfred Jarry. It is the 1st Absolute of First year, of the Pataphysical Era. Hence, why September 1979, the “vulgar calendar” used on the AaRevue, is indeed “Absolu 107”.
New calendar systems are nothing new, definitely not in an age where more people seem to long for the Mayan calendar than our “vulgar” calendar, based on Jesus Christ. The French Revolution, of course, also briefly entertained a novel calendar. The Pataphysical calendar used thirteen months, twelve lasting 28 and one lasting 29 days. They are: Absolu, Haha, As, Sable, Décervelage, Gueules, Pédale, Clinamen, Palotin, Merdre, Gidouille (29 days), Tatane, Phalle.

It seems logical therefore to assume that the AaRevue is part of this “other” era, not operating in the “Jesus Christ” timeline, but in the pataphysical world – a world created in 1873. A world that revolves more about Jarry, than about Jesus. That, of course, is also of interest in the light of the story of Rennes-le-Château, where so much ink has been devoted to that cornerstone of our calendar system.
Again, the question: 123 issues spread out over what period? Again, we can only wonder, and we arrived at a potential date of ca. 1959, with the full knowledge that issues 1 through 122 have most likely never appeared. However, in the understanding that they did exist, and that one “pataphysical month” covers part of the following month (Absolu is from September 8 to October 5), the period of “September-October” might not reflect a bimonthly publication, but could indeed be a “vulgar” translation of a monthly publication… in which case the magazine started approximately ten years earlier, ca. 1969.

Aa better understanding

The date now makes sense and is known to be part of the pataphysical world. Where does this leave the curious doubling of AAs, both in the title, as well at the bottom of the title page, “Aabonnement”, the French equivalent of “Ssubcription”. We have a certain advantage, in the sense that we are familiar with the existence of a secret society, the AA, which operated in the 17th and 18th century, and which was specifically a secret society made up by priests. We have reported about this organisation in “The Secret Vault” and made references to it on numerous occasions. Some of their literature has been made available, in the original French editions. Though we know, let us note that several years ago (and with most of the general public, if not our readership itself), a doubling of the A remained elusive and would not automatically have led to making an association with the AA.

Aaccentuated suggestions

This document appears to be almost totally unknown and unstudied. And it appears to sit within a framework of its own – pataphysics – which is known to be real, in the sense that Jarry did invent such a system. It is hence not an invention by Saunière, nor of de Cherisey… in fact, connections to the story of Rennes-le-Château appear to be absent – totally absent… though in pataphysics, that would also mean it was absolutely present.
We note that the date of this document is 1979, several years – 15 years – after the Dossiers Secrets were being deposited in the National Library. De Sède had long published his book (1968), though “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” was still three years in the future – 1982.
So what is de Cherisey writing about? The answer: certain accents, specifically the “circonflexe” (as in ^), and the umlaut (ü). One could argue he was “accentuating” certain items, placing stresses – emphases – on certain things? Alternatively, he may have lost his mind… though again, both could be the same within the virtual world that is pataphysics.

A smokescreen

Philippe de Cherisey

It is clear that the Dossiers Secrets were an invention at best, though more likely a smokescreen. Is this “AARevue” part of the activity of what was going on behind the scenes? Or was it, fifteen years post the Dossiers Secrets, a next step? If the latter, it obviously failed to launch – unless we have become unknowing participants in de Cherisey’s final and now posthumous plot.
Still, the AARevue does not tackle any of the known and popularised theories of Rennes-le-Château. But rather than speculate how the AARevue could fit into Rennes-le-Château (a mistake most authors make, predisposed as they are to see Rennes-le-Château as the whole, rather than a part of another puzzle), indeed, what if de Cherisey was part of an “AA”, with apparent links to Jarry? And what if – what a thought – the entire creation of the Dossiers Secrets and the promotion of Rennes-le-Château and its priest Saunière was part of an initiative of the AA?
What if… indeed. We know the AA was a secret organisation that existed in the 17th and 18th century. It largely consisted of priests, who operated as an underground stream – if not a terrorist network – within the Church – if not against the Church. Some believe the AA was the successor to the Compagnie du Saint Sacrement, which was created by the likes of Olier and de Paul, priests who also created St Sulpice, that “temple” that would also become linked with Sauniere and the Priory of Sion. Who created that link? The Dossiers Secrets. Or: de Cherisey.
The AA was a secret network of priest, operating within the Church, but uncontrolled by the Church. Does that not sound familiar? Is that not very much likeSaunière? Saunière, a priest who defies orders by de Beauséjour, but seems to have received the protection of a former bishop, Billard. Was Billard also a member of the AA? And what to make of the huge sums of money? If Saunière was Italian, we might think he was involved with the mafia. Indeed. We could draw parallel to the money transfers that are known to exist between terrorist organisations. Indeed. And these apparently differ only slightly from the AA. And if the AA operated in the 17th and 18th century… why not in the 19th? And if operational in the 19th century, could Saunière be part of it? All of a sudden, we have a logical framework both for why de Cherisey became involved with the story of Saunière, and why we find him writing in this “AaRevue”. And let us not forget the strange attraction to inversions, so cherished by Saunière himself.
But obviously we are wrong in making such a quick decision? Thank God for pataphysics, for being “totally wrong” means we are also “totally right”. But speaking of a terrorist/secretive network of priests that operated within the church… could this also explain the brutal assassination of Gélis? And like the Mafiosi, Saunière never –ever – divulged the names of his paymasters when he was instructed by bishop de Beauséjour to do precisely that. Omerta? With a double AA, we have obviously only seen the start, but not the ZZ – the end.

André Douzet, with additional material by Filip Coppens
We would like to extend our gratitude to Lio, Rémy and Stéphane

AARevue, issue 123 >>