Bérenger Saunière. Spy? Part 1: From Mary Magdalene to Isis

 

A forgotten actor

In recent years, Philippe de Chérisey has once again become the subject of some debate. The impetus for this revival is the drive of certain researchers to publish some of the works he wrote, starting with Jean-Luc Chaumeil who published his “Stone and Paper”, and continuing with “The Calf with Five Legs”, carefully guarded for almost thirty years by two of de Chérisey’s friends.
Both publications have resulted in providing the reader with several insights into who this rather enigmatic man truly was. For even though his name is often mentioned as “the one” that created – faked – the two parchments that became the backbone of the mystery of Saunière, it seems that most stop there. Most researchers seem to suggest, or think, that de Chérisey was somehow a helper of Plantard, and that he did such things on the latter’s behalf.
But these new revelations – and anyone who has researched de Chérisey – make it apparent that there was more to de Chérisey than merely being the creator of these parchments. So who was he?

A bio

De Chérisey was born on February 13, 1923 and died on July 17, 1985. Apart from the two parchments, it is also known that he had a hand in the so-called “Dossiers Secrets”, a series of documents deposited in the French National Library, that were meant to substantiate an unfounded allegation that the mystery of Rennes-le-Château revolved around the Merovingian Dynasty, and specifically, that the Priory of Sion were the caretakers of this secret dynasty. The success of the campaign would see the return of a Merovingian king to the throne of France.
At the time when this campaign began, in the 1960s, de Chérisey was a well-known artist in France, working for radio, as well as appearing in movies. He played a role in René Clément’s “Jeux Interdits” in 1952, as well as in René Clair’s “Porte des Lilas” (1957). It is clear that of the trio – completed by Gérard de Sède and Pierre Plantard – de Chérisey was by far the most famous, if not an all-rounder. He was anything but Plantard’s “accomplice”. It might indeed have been the other way around.
Though de Sède wrote several books on the mystery, de Chérisey too wrote extensively on this and other subjects, including pataphysics. But because of their more esoteric contents, as well as less of a desire to see them rushed into print, many remained in manuscript format, or only knew a very privileged circulation – for example his book “Circuit”, a typewritten document that he deposited in the National Library in 1971, under his own name, is something that is often passed around from researcher to researcher, yet never made available in a printed format, not even in a limited edition print-run.

The testament of de Chérisey

In 2006, Jean-Luc Chaumeil published “Rennes-le-Château – Gisors – The Testament of the Priory of Sion”, containing de Chérisey’s “Stone and Paper”. The document appeared 21 years after de Chérisey’s death, conform to his desire that it could not be published until twenty years after his death.
Chaumeil himself was one of the key players of the Priory of Sion, for example, engineering the interview that Henry Lincoln and the BBC had with Pierre Plantard and which became the start of the international fame of the Priory of Sion, resulting in such books as Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”. Indeed, it is argued that in 1983 and 1984, Chaumeil was secretary of the Priory of Sion, and he himself notes that it was he who brought Gino Sandri in contact with Pierre Plantard – Sandri claiming he is the successor of Plantard as the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.
It is an uncontested fact that Chaumeil knew and observed both Plantard and de Chérisey “in action” and some even have labelled him part and parcel of the “hoax” that was the Priory of Sion. Even though we would not dare to go so far, his friendly and close relationships with the leaders of the circus is why de Chérisey entrusted him with his manuscript “Stone and Paper”, in which he explained how he engineered the parchments, and other elements of the mystery, for public consumption. For de Chérisey, the parchments were labelled to be “an amusing joke” and the publication of this work would thus be seen as the final nail in the coffin of the mystery of the Priory of Sion – exposing it as a hoax. The end…?

Well, perhaps not. For as he was the joker that he was, we need to ask whether he wanted to have the final laugh. And some might argue that simply because he claimed he had faked the parchments, does not mean he actually did it. And when the manuscript was published, even though it was unmistakably in the handwriting of de Chérisey, some doubt whether it was really his.
Despite such doubts, it is nevertheless clear that “Stone and Paper” should not be seen in isolation – as too many have done – but should be seen with his other works, some unrelated to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château (i.e. on pataphysics), some related (e.g. The Calf with Five Legs). Especially the latter make it clear that de Chérisey was not just a joker; he was a joker with intent, and a man sincerely interested in the mystery, with his own opinions and theories, just like the court’s jester was able to tell the truth and live to tell the tale – purely because he used humour. Rather than a stupid joke, it is therefore clear that the fabrication of the parchments was created with a goal in mind. The question then is: what is that goal?

Mary Magdalene

Wieland Willker has demonstrated that at the basis of the small parchment was the Codex Bezae, which the parchment maker copied and adapted to his own needs, to hide his own clues inside of it. This document contained the words “Secundo Primo”, which has the initials S P, which de Chérisey used to hint at the P S… the Priory of Sion, which is indeed a veritable association that Plantard had created in 1956, but which seems to have lived a very short existence, before being given a new lease of life a decade later.
Furthermore, one might think that the interest into Mary Magdalene and the mystery is relatively recent, becoming multiplied because of the success of “The Da Vinci Code”. But in a letter, dated November 6, 1964, written by de Chérisey, it is clear that he too was interested in this saint. He writes: “P.S. Saint Magdalene was brought to France in very ancient times. Ancient traditions, more or less legendary, speak of a pilgrimage to her sepulchre. […] It has never been discovered. […] There can be no confusion about the person, as only two saints have ever carried the name Magdalene (the second is out of the question as she lived in the 17th century and used the religious name of Sister Catherine), hence it has to be the one that spread out a perfume of amber on the Christ, crying on Calvary. […] What do you think I went searching for in Rennes-le-Château? Pray for me. If I succeed, I won’t have the right to talk about it.”
The letter is evidence that de Chérisey was more than just a joker, and that his interests in the mystery were genuine, and that he was searching for something. Whether, of course, he, like so many other researchers, was deluded in his ambitions of finding the saint’s tomb, is a different matter altogether.

At the same time, the letter is also typical of de Chérisey: he touches on things, but never goes into any great depth, as if he wants to leave his audience guessing – or, in this case, believes or knows that his audience already knows some of the framework in which he is operating.
Either way, we know that in 1964 he is looking for the tomb of Mary Magdalene, but why that is the case, is not explained. We learn that if he were to find it, he is apparently not at liberty to say anything more, suggesting that he is not a sole operator, but part of a team that has decided that if they were to find it, it will be kept secret. That is, of course, a very intriguing observation to make, for though it does not prove that there was a secret organisation behind de Chérisey, it shows there is secrecy involved, and at best an agreement amongst friends not to speak out, no matter what. If these friends were Plantard, then it is clear that in the years to come, they would have a change of heart, for the interviews Plantard was to give to the likes of the BBC and others in the 1970s, were clearly designed to bring with them publicity, something which he was – they were – apparently avoiding in 1964.

Composure

Either way, it is clear that de Chérisey in 1964 is not the same man he was when he wrote “Stone and Paper”. To some extent, he is not even the same man as the author of “Le Serpent Rouge” (The Red Serpent), a famous poem that is often seen as part of the Dossiers Secrets (though factually is not), whereby in poetic terms, there are references to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, the Parisian church of St Sulpice, and the quest for, and presence of, the tomb of Mary Magdalene.
We cannot know how well-read de Chérisey was. He obviously knew about the legends of Mary Magdalene in France, but he either did not know or chose to neglect the fact that these legends were relatively recent, in circulation from the 10th century onwards. Hence, the likelihood of her tomb being in France was minimal, and the likelihood of her tomb being in Rennes-le-Château equally bad. Hence, he was either deluded, or knew certain things no-one else knew… or knew something about Rennes-le-Château and used the search for the tomb of Mary Magdalene as a cover story. It would mean that his audience would think it was unlikely he would find it, but it would at least explain why he was there – even though the true object of his research might have been something different than the tomb of Mary Magdalene.

Assuming the latter was the case, we want to offer a scenario: some of the heretics that travelled around, often used names linked with the Gospels. By using those very names, it meant that they were sometimes above suspicion, for, of course, heretics were unlikely to be named or using proper Catholic names, right? Hence, there is the case of “Marc” of Lombardy, who some people confused with the Evangelist, thus resulting in some local stories about how Marc the Evangelist had travelled in Lombardy, whereas it was actually someone else, who travelled there much later. We can only wonder whether a similar situation occurred in or near Rennes-le-Château, and it is clear that de Chérisey was toying with this idea himself. For even though he seems sure it is the tomb of “a” Mary Magdalene, he does not at all seem sure it is “the” Mary Magdalene. He highlights it can only be her, as there have only been two women using that name, and it cannot be the second. It highlights that he has done research into the problem. The question, of course, is, whether there might not be a third, who merely used the name Mary Magdalene, as was the case with “Marc” of Lombardy? And if that were the case, Rennes-le-Château might – might – indeed contain the tomb of Mary Magdalene, but not the famous one.

Balms

Assuming de Chérisey knew it was unlikely he would find Mary Magdalene, what – or who – was he really searching for? It might seem idle speculation, or even unworthy of much ink, but the fact of the matter is that de Chérisey elsewhere gave hints – if not evidence – that he was using Mary Magdalene as a “code” for something else, but nevertheless linked with her. Indeed, it is evident that for de Chérisey, Mary Magdalene was none other than Isis, the Egyptian deity, and that he sees in Mary Magdalene especially someone who performs a role: the person who embalms, prepares, Jesus. That idea is specifically developed in “Le Serpent Rouge”, whereby he refers to the balms that “impregnate the sepulchre”, and elsewhere relates Isis directly to Mary Magdalene, adding she has a vase that is full of “healing balms”, which is actually not the case, as the balms were mortuary in nature, not for any medicinal purpose. Again, we can ask whether de Chérisey did not know better – however basic these elements are for someone who enjoyed a Catholic upbringing – or whether they are hints.
Later, he writes: “See the sign that DE LA CROIX has given in one of the three paintings of the Chapel of the Angels. Twice IS [i.e. Isis], embalmer and embalmed, the miraculous vase of the eternal White Lady of the Legends.” As bizarre as this – and other – references are, the volume of his writings make it clear that even though he seems to be going on about Mary Magdalene, for him, she was really nothing more than the Christianisation of Isis, and each time, he wants to make it apparent that behind this Christian Mary Magdalene, hides the Egyptian Isis. And it is in the latter that de Chérisey seems to be interested, not Mary Magdalene, who is indeed more or less like a layer of Christian veneer that he adds to his writing, so that the stupid will not read what he is truly saying. And whereas the reference to why, if he found the body of Mary Magdalene, he would not talk about it, does not make too much sense… if he was looking for something else, something connected to Isis, that might make more sense, if only because… what could possibly be hidden in France related to the Egyptian goddess Isis? And even if something was found, who could possibly believe it?

A tale of two priories

Jean-Luc Chaumeil once trumpeted that there were two Priory of Sion. One of them was the one created by Plantard, de Sède and de Chérisey, the other was the one constructed in “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, created by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. Chaumeil therefore wanted to underline that the exploits and history of the Priory, as depicted in the international bestseller, had little to do with the Priory as it had been formulated for the French audience.
What our study has shown so far, is that there is nevertheless a common element, namely Mary Magdalene – which is a novel revelation in itself. But whereas the “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” trio of authors seem to have taken biblical history very literally, as well as having added the role of Jesus Christ to this, for the “French Priory”, it seems clear that Mary Magdalene was merely code to talk about Isis, the real object of desire.

The dead

One passage of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” that has since been repeated in numerous other books is a recounting of the works of Professor Morton Smith. In 1958, this professor from Columbia University discovered a letter in a monastery near Jerusalem that contained an unknown passage of the Gospel of Marc; a passage that had been removed from all other extant versions of this Gospel. It provided evidence that the Bible had been altered, underlining that even if it were the Word of God, it was nevertheless censured – on occasion – by the Church. Perhaps not all words of god could be sent amongst Mankind in an unedited fashion.
The discovery made by Smith involves how the Lazarus story has been seriously altered from what it was originally. In the Bible, it appears as if Lazarus was dead, and was literally returned to the living through the intervention of Jesus – definitely something that is not an altogether daily occurrence and definitely evidence that Jesus was a supremely gifted individual, superhuman. But Smith’s discovery showed that what was really going on, was somewhat different: Lazarus was not dead; Lazarus was very much alive, and he and Jesus seemed to be naked together during one night that they spent alone together. Rather than homosexual activities, as some might ponder, what seemed to be going on quite clearly, was that Lazarus – a name derived from Osiris, Isis’s consort and brother – was initiated in what Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln described as a “symbolic ritual of death”, whereby, in short, Lazarus “died symbolically” – rather than literally. Hence, the Lazarus story would be nothing more, or less, than e.g. the stories of how an initiate in Freemasonry is supposed to symbolically die, to be “raised” by the Lodge of which he becomes a member.

To this, we need to add that the entire Lazarus initiation occurred in Bethany, which was the home of none other than Mary Magdalene, who is a key person in this entire saga. Indeed, some have seen Lazarus as Mary Magdalene’s brother. And if Lazarus symbolised Osiris and Mary Magdalene Isis, we continue to have a brother-sister relationship. To which we need to add that Osiris was the Lord of Dead, and that, hence, the name of Lazarus was aptly chosen for a person who Jesus initiated into a cult that involved the initiate undergoing a symbolic death.

To Rennes

All of a sudden, of course, we have ended up in Rennes-le-Château, where the church is dedicated to Mary Magdalene, where we have a Villa Bethania, and a Tour Magdala, in short, the setting where Lazarus was resurrected from the dead. One could argue that it was logical that Saunière would make his “theme park” conform to legends and aspects of Mary Magdalene, the patron saint of his church, and though that may be, it is nevertheless clear that we remain within a concise and clearly delineated framework. And whereas we now know that de Chérisey used “the Magdalene code” to speak about Isis, we can merely query whether Saunière did the same – and whether his real ambition was Isis and Lazaurs/Osiris too.

And back to de Chérisey

In “Stone and Paper”, de Chérisey continues to enthral us with details of the Lazarus story. It is the known story of how Mary Magdalene has used a most expense bottle of perfume on Jesus. “This generous gesture angered the apostles, estimating that the perfume costs 300 dinars and could have been sold, and the profit of its sale distributed amongst the poor. In his capacity of treasurer receiving ten percent of the earnings, Judas especially felt frustrated, but recuperated his loss by selling Christ for 30 dinars. […] Father Saunière learned in his turn what it cost to go beyond the honoraria of the bad apostle, having died on January 22, 1917.” He then adds how he considers Saunière to have “pillaged a necropolis where the dead, for so many centuries, remain naturally mummified and in a rather good state of conservation. From this perspective, we propose to consider the sinner Magdalene as the patron of embalming”, adding that this also related to Christ, declaring “she had worked the perfume for his sepulchre.”
It is with this conclusion – written down by de Chérisey himself – that we can establish that he considered Mary Magdalene as such unimportant and that her real importance lay in her role of embalmer, something which she shared with Isis, whereby all of these rituals were clearly linked with a cult of the dead. Hence, for de Chérisey, the importance of this saint had nothing to do with a bloodline or a lost dynasty, but with her job specification. She was, indeed, a code…

continued >>

Isaac ben Jacob