The case of the devil Part 3: “Asmodeus” makes his first cover…

 

Let us return to the name of our guardian demon inside the church. At no point did Saunière indicate that he had given his demon a name. Perhaps it was the furthest thing from his mind: it presented “a demon”, perhaps that was good enough… Nevertheless, it is clear that he never identified the dismayed guardian as Asmodeus. This name was introduced in the mystery of the village through the books of Gérard de Sède. He does not go into any detail about this identification, as if it is a well-established fact that is the name of the demon. Despite scant evidence, the demon’s identity has since become etched in stone in the legend of Rennes-le-Château… could it be one of the myths of the mystery?

Exclusivity or exclusion?

Let us entertain the notion that Saunière had a specific intention when he ordered the model from Giscard in Toulouse. This assumption is acceptable, seeing that his order was somewhat strange and unusual – and forced the factory to make a new mould. Until proof of the opposite, there is nothing in the catalogues of this factory to suppose that a demon carrying a stoup was listed in his catalogue. It is also clear that the other Asmodei found in different churches differ from Giscard’s model, though it is clear that certain characters of a devil will always be there, such as his wings, horns, the shape of his fingers, toes, etc.
We know that Saunière was meticulous in everything he did. It would suggest that the order of the devil model would not be different. “He composed all the inscriptions himself; he even went as far as ordering the martyrdom to be redone three times, as he was not satisfied with the slope of the head of Christ! […] On some occasions, Bérenger handles the pallet and brushes himself; the Magdalena painted under the altar is his own work”, thus writes de Sède in L’Or de Rennes (p. 34).

Saunière in front of the entrance to hish church

The guardian demon has been subjected to little analysis, most of which is based on the premises put forward by de Sède. Furthermore, the devil is often thrown in the same pot as the Stations of the Cross, the altar, the pulpit, the baptismal font and the other statues of saints. This is because they are all decorations, and all come from the same source – Giscard of Toulouse. Such is harsh treatment, for most of the depictions in the church are standard moulds – the devil is not.

Saunière’s desires

It is clear that Saunière wanted to have a devil carrying a stoup – as he had one specifically made. It suggests that nothing else would suffice. Perhaps he only wanted to have it for dramatic effect; perhaps there were other reasons. Still, it is clear that the model was a specific request and certain details, such as the position of the feet, hands, stare, the colouring, etc. could all be specifically chosen by Saunière. It definitely had to be someone’s choice, for if not Saunière, someone had to create “a devil” – and the client had to be satisfied that what he would be getting was “a devil”.

We can therefore note that there is “specific intent”, and we might assume it would be rather Saunière than Giscard who was responsible for all or certain details. What purpose would this demon serve? Was it some form of “guide” so that someone would be able to correctly read what Saunière was trying to divulge? “Those with eyes that could read, would see…” Perhaps this would mean that merely the colour of the clothing, blue, or the stripped knee and the bare shoulder, was sufficient for “those who knew” to see what was meant to be seen… perhaps. It would mean that if this was the case, then Saunière was part of a group of people with a body of knowledge and signs at their disposal. In this scenario, the devil might be an “identifier”, which showed to like-minded people that Saunière was one of them – or one who knew. Of course, it is possible that someone just gave Saunière this “ideogram” and was himself unaware of the meaning of what he had just created.

If this is the case, let us note that after Saunière’s death, everything was silent until the 1950s, with major publicity beginning to rise from the 1960s onwards. Did this revival have anything to do with a group of people who had “discovered” that Saunière was one of them? Whatever the case may be – and all of it purely theoretical – with the arrival of Gérard de Sède on the scene, we note that it leaves the area of speculation, and the mystery of Saunière becomes a world-renowned phenomenon.

The arrival of Gérard de Sède

"Initially, one sees a deformed devil supporting the stoup, then the eye discovers little by little a group of statues, their faces like mimes, solidified in strange postures, with howling colours and fixing on the visitor their insupportable glazed glance. […] But soon, in spite of oneself, one begins to examine this strange world where each detail seems, one does not know in which intention, deliberate." (page 11, ‘Le trésor maudit de Rennes-le-Château’ (‘J’ai lu – L’Aventure Mystérieuse’, 1971) by Gérard de Sède. This work is the republication of his first work: L’or de Rennes, The Gold of Rennes, published with the editions Juillard in 1967 and Cercle du livre d’Histoire’ , Tallandier in 1968.
We note that at this stage, early on in his exploration of the mystery, de Sède does not yet name the devil as Asmodeus. Not even on page 137, where he writes: "As soon as I crossed the door of the church, an at the very least surprising group welcomes us. A hideous, carved and painted devil, natural size, supports the stoup."
It is only on page 138 that this demon is named for the first time: "the outfit of the devil indicates at the same time his name and what it does here. As each one knows, the lame devil is Asmodeus.” It is done… our character enters the myth of Rennes-le-Château under this name and today no-one would know it being differently. Was it a true identification, or did de Sède confabulate the identity of this creature? We will never know, but it will not be the end of what that author had to say about this devil.

The second edition of Gérard de Sède's book

Nobody would ever dispute this assertion… Wasn’t Gérard de Sède the main authority on the mystery? But perhaps we should… Identifying this creature as lame is difficult. Is it because he has one leg on the ground? This is not because of his lameness, but because of the weight of the stoup: “by this sign you will conquer him, i.e. bring him to his knees.” If he was lame, we would expect to see a lame – weak or deformed – foot (which is not there), or a crutch or cane (which is not there). But we would definitely not expect a lame person – or a demon – to be able to carry a stoup. Furthermore, if Asmodeus, the devil best renowned for his work on the Temple of Solomon, why are there no more specific references that would identify him as such? Important questions, which apparently have never been asked.

A cascade of re-editions with changing titles

There were many republications of this principal work. It is noted that with each republication the title changes:
- L’Or de Rennes ou la vie insolite de Bérenger Saunière, curé de Rennes-le-Château (the Gold of Rennes or the strange life of Berenger Saunière, the priest of Rennes-le-Château) Juillard, 1967
- Le trésor maudit de Rennes-le-Château (The Accursed Treasure of Rennes-le-Château) J’ai lu, 1971.
- Signé Rose+Croix, L’énigme de Rennes-le-Château (The Sign of the Rose+Cross, the enigma of Rennes-le-Château) PLON, 1977

One could initially wonder why each republication is placed under another title. Undoubtedly it is a detail related to the rules of republications? Why not… however, a better look will show that there is an evolution in the direction of the titles.
Edition in Le Cercle du Nouveau Livre D'Histoire of L'Or de Rennes by Gérard de Sède

The first title L’Or de Rennes ou la vie insolite de Bérenger Saunière, curé de Rennes-le-Château (the Gold of Rennes or the strange life of Berenger Saunière, the priest of Rennes-le-Château) has the word Gold in the forefront, immediately followed by the strange life of Berenger Saunière… revealing the notorious character of the enigma.
The second title, Le trésor maudit de Rennes-le-Château (The Accursed Treasure of Rennes-le-Château), no longer speaks of gold, but of a treasure, and an accursed one at that.
The third title, Signé Rose+Croix, L’énigme de Rennes-le-Château (The Sign of the Rose+Cross, the enigma of Rennes-le-Château), is suddenly left without gold, or a treasure; instead, there is an enigma… and a sign of the Rose+Cross, the Rosy Cross or the Rosicrucians?

What has happened here? From an apparent boldness, de Sède’s title seems to succumb to an almost uninspired attempt of not wanting to sell! At first, de Sède proclaims he has uncovered the mystery; ten years later, he seems to suggest he is confronted by an enigma, and it is “signed” by the Rose&Cross. Note that at the same time, the main text of the book was hardly ever changed – what he wrote in 1967, still existed in 1977; only the title was continuously made “less appealing” to the reader, even though the book was a bestseller and you would expect ever more bold titles.

Though the publisher might have demanded new titles with each re-edition, it is clear that it was left to the author to come up with them – or at least give his fiat to the choice. In the case of the third book and its reference to the Rose & Cross, no self-respecting publisher would ever be able to come up with that one, and thus the hand of de Sède is most likely identified in that one.
But de Sède does not stop here. Note that in the first edition, he identifies the devil as Asmodeus – as we just said, on little evidence, and probably incorrectly. For the third edition, Asmodeus actually becomes the cover illustration.

The upturned devil

Making it to the cover of a publication means it is typical for that publication – and our devil definitely has become that for the enigma of the village. Obviously, a photograph was taken of the devil, and then cut out from his background, and placed in front of a beige background. He is shown from his head to his waist; his hands are invisible. The name of the publisher, PLON, are at the bottom, with the title of the book above him.
It shows, as should be expected, the old Asmodeus: with dark chestnut eyes, and not his present blue-green ones. It is also obvious that the photograph has been mirrored. What is left for the visitor to the church, is right on the cover. As such, the real Asmodeus looks to the right, but on the cover to the left. But: the right, stripped shoulder of the devil has now become his left shoulder! If there are hidden clues in the design of the devil, his naked shoulder would be a prime one, and if de Sède spotted these, this mirroring would make this “sign” disappear. Also note that various other parts of the devil are not even displayed (i.e. hand and legs).
Of course, it is far more logical to assume that de Sède knew “nothing” and even that this mirroring was an accident. The slide for the cover might accidentally have been reversed, with the designer not noticing his error – and it seems de Sède not noticing it either when he saw the final product, or perhaps even a galley proof.

But perhaps the “error” was voluntary. In this case, it is not an error, but a will-full decision. What then? Perhaps it was a joke, perhaps an innocent one. Perhaps it was purely the desire of the designer, who felt that the cover looked better that way, and de Sède had no qualms with that decision.
However, we should note that there could be other motives. In this case, it could indeed be so that people do not spot it is his right shoulder that is naked. In this scenario, we are suddenly confronted with lots of potential intrigue.

The guardian, in mirror image...

compared with the actual devil inside the church

However, let us once again note that few if any readers paid attention to this detail. No tenor in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, whether French, English or of a different nationality, apparently ever noticed the mistake. Whereas details of the main text have often been subjected to endless discussion, the cover itself is often not analysed – de Sède knew this, and anyone else in the publishing industry knows as much; they are there to draw people in – that seems to be their sole purpose – so what an area for the author to play with, knowing that it might never be noticed!

The colossal work of a meticulous writer

Cover of Gérard de Sède's Signé: Rose+Croix

De Sède was a pioneer. His book makes one understand that this author did a meticulous and colossal work. His book would inspire Henry Lincoln to begin a series of television documentaries, in the end leading to the publication of a book, Holy Blood and Holy Grail, introducing the subject to the English audience. To gather all the elements de Sède tackled in this book is a veritable marathon effort. De Sède had to consult the various files, meet the various people, ask if not argue about permission to publish such or such detail, etc. Then there is the role of and working relationship with Plantard and de Chérisey, a co-operation which would become the main point of discussion and controversy of the entire enigma. This involves the introduction of the large and small parchments and their enigmatic clues, two items which seem to be forgeries. If so, then the question should be asked whether de Sède knew this when he introduced them, and if so, why he allowed them – or whether he directed their “meaning” in any manner.
Still, let us note that the forgery would have taken time and would have required perhaps not a genius, but definitely an ingenious person, with a dedicated mind. And here is the major conundrum – which few if any people have ever asked: if de Sède at one point merely told Plantard that he was writing a book on Saunière, how quickly could Plantard get himself up to speed with what de Sède was collating (and which was all unpublished at the time), then to co-ordinate with de Cherisey the extent of his forgery, before finally being able to present the forged parchment to de Sède, this miraculously in time for the publication deadline of the book. The most likely scenarios suggest that de Sède was a member of this group, which would mean the forgery was premeditated, and with the full awareness of the author – de Sède.

Let us not stop here. We note that certain people that provided information to de Sède were aware of specific information of the mystery of this priest. De Sède was the first to speak to these people “on the record”; they might have told him certain things they wanted to keep “off the record” – and most definitely they will not have told him what they did not want him to tell. Still, it is clear that with no clearly defined framework of the mystery of Saunière, it was de Sède who created this. We note this is what he did with the devil, and we note that he most likely misidentified this creature. We note he introduced forged documents in this mystery. We note his co-operation with Plantard, who would later greatly expand on his “Priory of Sion” organisation, specifically by the time Lincoln entered the scene.

A scam or transmission of knowledge?

The result is that the mystery of Saunière has become embroiled with the mystery of the Priory of Sion. Whereas the latter is most definitely a hoax, can we heap the mystery of Saunière on the same pile? The framework is definitely present to answer affirmatively… but we need to note that this framework is the same framework created by de Sède. And why would de Sède risk his career by knowingly introducing forgeries? The mystery of Rennes-le-Château does not need those documents: de Sède could have easily stopped short of that, and the mystery would have grown just as quickly – if not faster. In retrospect, the forgeries and the association with Plantard have acted as brakes; and we need to note that Plantard, when he upped the tempo on the Priory of Sion once he realised that a world audience would soon hear about the mystery, thus put extra effort into making sure that the mystery would never receive a “clean bill of health”: he made sure it would remain forever marred in controversy.
For sure, it would forever be linked with his name; but once again, he could carve out any role he wanted to play – the slate was clean; why did he embark on a path that would and could only lead to doom? No-one has ever stated Plantard was stupid… if anything, he was deemed to be quite intelligent…

Did Saunière possess and try to pass on certain knowledge?

So if not a scam, then what? The role of the model of Saunière suggests that he had specific knowledge to impart to people he could no longer meet. We know that even in the 1990s, there were some people aware that Saunière had been asked to create this model – though they were unaware of the fact that he had almost completed the production of it.
We speculated whether Asmodeus and his design might feature in a transmission of knowledge. And whether de Sède played a part of this, or was used by people to find out more. In this scenario, the series of publication would make sense: at the same time, de Sède and co. were trying to find out certain information, but at the same time making sure it would never be taken “too serious”, by creating forged documents and inflated statements about invented secret societies. What a joke it would be if a true secret society had been playing the likes of de Sède, Plantard, if not Saunière, yet made sure their existence would never be uncovered by creating the fake “Priory of Sion”!

Irrelevant of such a scenario, we do need to ask whether the reversal of the image of Asmodeus might have been part of this, and whether his alteration of appearance was so that certain “clues” did not fall within the public domain – until someone actually went to Rennes-le-Château and spotted the reversal – which few people seem to have done, though many have come. Not even the notion that it does not seem to be Asmodeus has escaped so many people. If Saunière was the father of this devil, then de Sède can be considered his godfather!

However, a different scenario becomes possible – and we note it is entirely theoretical:
- there is a certain knowledge involved in the mystery of Saunière and/of Rennes-le-Château.
- A type of secret transmission exists, under strict conditions.
- Saunière was partially or totally aware of this knowledge – as well as perhaps certain of his friends and/or predecessors.
- This transmission continues to the time of de Sède, but certain knowledge might have since been lost, perhaps because it might have even been lost in the time of Saunière, but somehow collated back together by him.
- One cannot destroy the beacons, perhaps including the image of the devil, because they ensure that the work of the “watchers”, or seekers, continues.
- Though it would also be possible to make sure that the plan or the clues get scrambled, mixed or made extremely difficult, e.g. by an infusion of forged material (e.g. parchments) or false claims (e.g. “the devil is Asmodeus”). The new trees would hide the original forest.
- Changed times would require changed attitudes, and new means, e.g. the media and the publication of a book could help “the cause”.
- A trusted person – an author – is required to carry out this work.

In the footsteps of the devil…

In this case, could the “sign” of the Rose & Cross, identified in the title of the third book, be linked with the chosen design – the devil? We note that the angels on top make the signs of the cross, and above that, is a design of a cross also, which could be described as a “rosy cross”. It is what the Germans call “spielerie” – a bit of fun… but the question is whether it is meaningful, or meaningless.

Two possible routes, apparently at first completely incompatible with each other, now seem to have merged: a true mystery, but hidden by a thick layer of false claims and lies hardly anyone will see true – or will become tarred with if anyone tries to pass through it. How could this devil ever bring us to the light – i.e. Lucifer, the Bringer of Light?

continued >>