The Chefdebien enigma

 

Two priests and a revelation

Léon Gineste is one of the few researchers who has focused his spotlight on the de Chefdebien family. They are one of a number of families that are often mentioned in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, but often without great context, insight or revelation. Still, this family is central to the mystery, specifically as Bérenger Saunière’s brother, Alfred, was instrumental in setting him up with a link to the Countess de Chambord. And it was probably Alfred who also allowed his brother to enter in contact with certain esoteric circles, mainly in the Lyon and his native Languedoc region.
The relationship between the two brothers is something that has not been carefully mapped. Many researchers leave out the role of Alfred altogether, assuming the mystery is purely of local interest and as Alfred was not in Rennes-le-Château, there is little to report on him. But on occasion, it seems clear that the brothers often acted as one, or in accordance with each other. It seems that they were often complementary, with one brother having access to something or someone which the other did not have, and vice versa. This may, of course, go back to their childhood, as we know that they both opted for a career in the priesthood and thus they shared not only a family bond, but also a “mission” in life.
Still, Alfred fell foul of his mission, had several sexual relationships and even a child, and was in the end forced to leave the clergy. No wonder therefore that when Bérenger too ran into trouble with the bishop late in his life (and following Alfred’s death), he observed that he was paying dearly for certain things that his brother had done. What exactly these things were, we do not know, but it underlines the strong bond between the two brothers, even though the precise nature is not known.

Bérenger must have known the human shortcomings his brother had in his religious devotion and “mission”. But it seems that throughout, he supported his brother, even taking in his nephew after Alfred’s death for periods of time (Alfred’s child was born after Alfred’s death). But we can only wonder whether Bérenger ever told his brother off for his lack of commitment or deviations from the righteous path. Perhaps not, as there are several rumours that Bérenger too had great problems to walk the path.
Still, there are other possibilities. If both man had a common bond and common role in their doings, if Alfred was a powerful protector of Bérenger, then it may be that Bérenger could get away with the things he did. As long as Alfred was around, no-one would be able to touch Bérenger. But if Alfred would no longer be around, then Bérenger would be hunted down and might even have to pay more dearly than before. Remarkably, therefore is to note that Bérenger’s problems begin in 1906, one year after Alfre’s death, and four years after de Beauséjour’s arrival on the scene. Of course, we cannot make too much of a chronological sequencing of events, but we can wonder whether de Beauséjour had to wait until Alfred’s death before he could have a go at Bérenger. But this “shared mission” also means that after Alfred’s death, Bérenger would remain the sole witness and player of what was once a duet.

One time too many

Alfred was probably more intelligent than his brother and definitely more intellectual. He was a priest before Bérenger and his vivacity allowed him to enter the Jesuit order, as well as swim around in high social circles. We know he often displayed arrogant behaviour and was even prone to land himself in a scandal, but largely, this had no ill effect on his career. Whereas Bérenger was reprimanded in 1885 for preaching against the Republic and for the monarchy, Alfred was actually swimming around in those very monarchic circles and it were his contacts whom he exposed to his brother and to Rennes-le-Château. Thus, the Countess of Chambord gave him some money for his derelict church, but she was not alone in opening her purse.
But one day, Alfred went too far. He had become the preceptor of a notorious family of Narbonne, de Chefdebien de Zagarriga, and thinking that he was untouchable, he left all control behind him. He commited a crime that would force his benefactors to sack him. The crime? It is said that he had gained access to certain “forbidden archives” of this family and had “laid his hands on them”. We can only wonder whether this meant that he had betrayed their trust and had read or removed these documents, or whether he had actually stolen them. And we can only wonder whether the entire exercise, of befriending the family, then working for them, was perhaps part of a larger plot in which he was to gain access to those files, and whether this was a plan that involved Bérenger. In short: was the theft of de Chefdebien papers a central feature of the “mission” Bérenger and Alfred Saunière?
What was it about these secret archives that was so important that Alfred risked everything? Indeed, it seems that Alfred actually stole the papers. Why did he not satisfy himself with a copy of the papers (which would have been easier to accomplish). Did he somehow need the originals? A copy could be more easily contested, whereas the original is valuable… but also dangerous.
Still, if it was about a piece of the family archives, the Chefdebien family could easily claim the material back, showing quite easily that it belonged to them and that Alfred had to return it to them?

So what is what he stole and why did the family not force him to return it, apparently knowing he had stolen it, and having already fired him for doing so.
We know that this illustrious family descended from Hugues Capet. Was it perhaps a document from that rather nebulous period which somehow could play a key role in post-revolutionary monarchic circles, like be some type of support for some claimant to the throne and social reform of France? Still, as the Chefdebien family decided not to pursue the case through a trial, or an official complaint, then it seems likely that the existence of this document could somehow not be revealed or even be rumoured to exist. In which case, what could be the content of this document?
It therefore seems that Alfred had played the game well, though it seems that as soon as he got what he wanted, he also lost all his access to the various aristocratic circles, no doubt the consequence of de Chefdebien family informing their peers that Alfred was not to be trusted and hence should and would no longer be invited at social or informal gatherings of the “beau monde”. But it seems equally clear that ownership of these archives comes with a certain clout and protection against too extreme forms of punishment that these circles would want to impose on him.

This theft could be the cornerstone of the mystery of Saunière… which extends beyond Bérenger and involves his brother. And let us note that this mission may be more than just the handiwork of Alfred, but may have involved Bérenger, and may have been done as a mission he or they had to carry out on behalf of a group… to which the brothers may have belonged. For let us note that any sanctions against the two brothers could and would come only from religious circles. And such sanctions would eventually come, but with many years delay… and possibly not for the crimes committed, but the lifestyle they chose to life once they apparently became “the untouchables”. When the dark clouds gathered of Alfred’s head, he would be forced to leave de Jesuits and lived in Montazels until his death in 1905, enjoying the company of Marie-Emilie Salière.

A priest who died too soon?

Bérenger paid the costs of his brother’s funeral. He seems to have complained about this bitterly to some of his colleagues, as well as to his bishop, Mgr. de Beauséjour. One can read a rather astonishing excerpt from a letter dealing with this topic: “the priest of Rennes-le-Château was expected to expiate the faults of his brother, who died too early.” It’s a remarkable manner upon which to end a sentence. Indeed, doesn’t everyone die too soon? It reads as if he is implying something more: that he literally died “too soon”… prematurely. As if he was murdered? There is the assassination of Gélis and there are various rumours about other suspicious deaths in the wider framework, a list which includes Boudet and Bérenger himself, but no-one, it seems, has looked into Alfred’s death, which obviously someone, i.e. Bérenger, felt was “too early”. Indeed, knowing what we know, there is good motive for someone wishing Alfred dead: he stole a most important secret archive. It left the de Chefdebien family furious… and willing to take action? Get “revenge”? Perhaps not, but perhaps Bérenger thought they might, or did?
Or do we need to read “too early” in a different setting? Had Alfred died before something – a “mission” – was completed? Did it perhaps leave Bérenger alone and now in some difficulty to complete the work alone? If so, perhaps we could look upon the actions of de Beauséjour in this regard, namely going after Bérenger and causing him endless problems, so that he would have little time, energy and money to accomplish his mission. His opposition would know he would find it hard to fend for himself, without Alfred, and tried to drown him. (In this scenario, the creation of the model later in life takes on an even more interesting role.) Finally, let us also note that with Alfred dead, Bérenger’s income too took a serious nose-dive.
In short, Alfred’s life hinged on this family’s documents. And to learn more, we need to look into this family…

A diversion via the church of Armissan

On July 14, 1597, Pierre de Belisent gave Armissan, near Narbonne, to René de Chefdebien, already owner of Puisserguier in the Languedoc. The family originated from Chavenay in Poitou and the sale of the family domains and of Puisserguier allowed them to buy Armissan. Our lord died on January 17, 1615 and his tomb (whose original stone was apparently in the old church of Bizanet), in the church of Armissan, is still visible:

CI GIST NOBLE RENE DE
CHEFDEBIEN ESCVIER SEG
D’ARMISSAN & AVES LIEV
QVI APRES AVOIR VECV
LX ANS EN HOME DE BIEN
ET RECV XXVIII BLESSVRES
POUR LE SERVICE DU ROI
DECEDA LE XVII JANVIER
MDCXV DIEV LVY FACE
MISERICORDE AMEN

Indeed, it invites us to pray and we need to, if only because of the presence of January 17 on this tombstone, a date that has taken on a life of its own in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château. Nearby is a commemoration stone for the victims of World War I. It is very similar to that of Couiza (and Tarentaise in the Pilat), well known in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château and originating from the workshop of Giscard, in Toulouse, where Saunière ordered so many of his artwork for the church. It shows the infamous wounded soldier, with the usual phrase: “JE SUIS LA RESURRECTION ET LA VIE”. We note, however, some oddity about this particular copy, namely the absence of the name Giscard on it – even though it clearly originated from his workshop.

The original church was that of Prieuré de St Pierre del Lec, which was devastated in 1355 by mercenaries of the Black Prince, and was replaced by the church St Etienne, on the present location of the church, near the ancient fort. At the time of the Revolution, the building was almost a ruin and was rebuilt with money from the de Beaumont family.
Leaving the sanctuary, one has to look up a wall of a building, to see certain sculpted stones. We were told that they were remnants of the blazon of the lords, as we see a lion surmounted by a head, representing the Chefdebien. The problem is that if one does a close-up of this carving, the “lion” does not appear very feline. As to the head itself, it bears striking resemblances to other such heads, some of which can be seen in the chapel of Ste Croix en Jarez (again in the Pilat), as well as in the church of Montsaunès. Together with some other details, it is difficult to accept that these stones are indeed remnants from the blazon of the Chefdebien family, though of course that does not diminish the symbolic or artistic value of the composition.

From Penmad to the Ponts

The family remained master of the barony of Armissan for two centuries, until François-Raymond de Chefdebien, who was born in 1860, and the last to carry this title. There is not much if any mystery or intrigue in this long line of lords who seem to take care both of their territory and the people reporting into them.
According to Jean Markale, the family name was the outcome of converting the Breton name “Penmad” into French. Even though the origins of this “exile” from Brittany are not totally clear, there is nothing to suggest that here lies a mystery and definitely nothing to suggest that one should steal the family archives as a consequence of this.
Another fact does require our attention. Jean-François II de Chefdebien, from 1665 to 1702, succeeded Henry-René, Viscount of Armissan. The daughter of Jean-François, Marie-Thérèse, married with Lord Antoine de Pont, Count of Albaret, and brings with her the title of Armissan. This Lord of Pont is none other than the intendant of the Roussillon. That in itself does not mean much. But it is he who is responsible and he who has access to the mandates that are required for royal notaries to have access to the property deeds and such like. And it are these types of documents that took on a primary role when the Roussillon was attached to the French crown – an event that occurred in 1656, but whose preparation started several decades earlier. And we note that it was the royal notary Courtade who was responsible for the inventory of the domains of Perillos, and he was equally one of the first notaries to exercise this task within that framework. According to the rules and regulations, he needed to submit a copy of his statements to the intendant… which means that the “Courtade document” would have been present with Lord de Pont, and could thus have ended up in the de Chefdebien family archives!
Finally, let us also note that the Cassini family stayed in the castle of de Chefdebien, while they were mapping the Narbonne region.

The Philadelphians… three points

It is of course impossible, when talking about this family, not to stop at the illustrious career of another Chefdebien: the Marquis de Chefdebien, founder of the Masonic lodge of the Philadelphians. We know that he was initiated in Freemasonry during his stay in Malta, when he was a garrison colonel on that island, charged as a royal emissary. It was there that he conceived of the idea, together with his six sons, equally knights and Knights of Malta, to found a Masonic lodge where the seven founders would all be from the same family… from Narbonne.
The lodge of the “Primitive Rite”, i.e. “Philadelphians”, as well as its first four chapters, were born on November 27, 1779. Paul Tirant, in “La franc-maçonnerie dans l’Aude”, adds that “in 1790, the Philadelphians counted 48 members, most of whom belonged to the Languedocian nobility: representatives from the higher bourgeoisie… We need to note that 13 brothers were Knights of Malta; there were links between this order and Freemasonry which was implanted since 1750 on that island where the Marquis de Chefdebien d’Armissan was a colonel.”
As to the origin of the name of the lodge, that is from the Greek word “Philadelphe”, which means “the one who marries his sister”, an allusion to Pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who married his sister Arsinoë II.
As to the Marquis himself, he married Eulalie de Zagarriga. She was the heir of the name of the barons of Zagarriga in Spain. It is from this alliance that the name “Chefdebien de Zagarriga” originated. According to Léon Gineste, these families had “quite straightforward links with the prince Ludwig and Frederic of Hesse, surrounded by numerous fervent esotericists.”

Orders above all suspicions

It indeed seems to be the case that these lords and nobles had a pronounced taste for esotericism. François Chefdebien evokes, at the Convent of Wilhelmsbad, the existence of the “Superior Unknown Templars” who have been charged with supervising the destiny of Freemasonry. Let us also note that he was suspected of lodging on his domains a “fraternity” with the name “the children of Sion”, something which too many authors have failed to note the potential importance of… and which could have great consequences for the mystery of Rennes-le-Château.
We need to add that in the background, certain societies were being created that were the occult heirs of the Illuminati of Bavaria and the famous Société Angélique. These groups organised themselves in parallel with the emerging Freemasonic lodges and obediences. We merely list the Rosicrucians, the Theosophical Society and those organisations created by the likes of Stanislas de Guaîta, Jules Bois, Claude Debussy and Maurice Maeterlinck.
There are a few known instances, and no doubt many unknown ones, whereby cells of these more closed societies were able to infiltrate the “secret societies” and use these for their own purposes. In short, one secret society hid another.

The trap of the AA and the Angelic Society

Gérard Moreau de Waldan did some research into the A.A.. He was the director of L’Indépendant du Viennois, and he found certain inconsistencies in the definition of the A.A., which he stated could not be due to error, of whatever kind. He found that A.A. (with dots after each A) sometimes became AA (no dots), A.A (one dot), AA. (one dot, but at the end), or even Aa (capital and lower a), all of which were variations on a theme, but for an apparent specific goal. Indeed, a casual reader would by default miss the point and put it down to a coincidence and error, but he argued that this was not the case – and could not be the case and that it seemed that each was somehow a “clue” understood by some, but not by most.
The same applies to the so-called Angelic Society, which sometimes was just that, sometimes AGLA, sometimes Agla, etc. These items work like trees obscuring the forest, but should be seen perhaps as organisations within organisations, or traps within traps, purely there to confuse and make the path more difficult to follow.

The truth is not there

Lyon was a central hub for many of these organisations, but some sub-organisations then went elsewhere and frequently became more powerful and/or important than the original organisation. In many cases, organisations in Narbonne became an autonomous unit. And this meant that though we should draw a line between Lyon and the “mother lodge” and Narbonne as its “daughter”, in truth, this is purely a line on paper, which bears no real resemblance to the real picture, which is that often an organisation commenced in Lyon, but soon, elsewhere became more important. We have discussed this for example for the Angelic Society, which was founded in Lyon, but soon became more important in Paris and even seems to have made its French headquarters in the capital, rather than in Lyon, where it was born.
In many cases, these secondary lodges then had to show their own proper identity, and often this was by making small and subtle changes to names: A.A. became AA, or A.A, etc.

Dead, but not forgotten

We have elsewhere identified that Narbonne is the true centre of the mystery of Rennes-le-Château and once again, we have found out that this is where the Chefdebien powerbase was located too. And for the next stage, we do not need to move far from the city, following the departmental road that takes us to the abbey of Fontfroide. It is near where the road splits to Bizanet that we stop at the foot of the circular ruin of the castle of Castellas, situated on a prominent location in the community of Montredon des Corbières (Aude).
Though of interest, we will have only little time and attention to the castle which H. Rouzeaud, an archaeologist from Narbonne, has described as “the most venerable and oldest castle of meridional Gaul”, no doubt because it was one of the most important observation posts from Gallo-Roman times. What remains visible today are the vestiges of the castle that was rebuilt in the 9th century of what is known as “Saint Pierre des Clars”.

Our interest is directed towards the other side of the road, where amongst the Cyprus trees rises – or rather: is hidden – a commemoration stone. Though some have suggested this is a tomb, it is actually a mausoleum – as we said: a commemoration stone. But the absence of a corpse does not diminish its importance – it may even add some.
It is a monument in the form of an obelisk, surrounded by an iron fence. The obelisk is quite large and hence visible from the road – though not clearly visible, as the Cyprus tree sits on top and somewhat in front of the monument.
Upon closer inspection, we find two inscriptions that are carved into the side that is facing the road and the Castellas. The first is a dedication:

FRANCOIS MARIE
DE
CHEFDEBIEN
ZAGARRIGA
VICOMTE
D’ARMISSAN
XIV
FEVRIER
MDCCCXXVIII

Below, we can read the following Latin inscription:

IN MEMORIA AETERNA
ERIT JUSTUS

This phrase means, according to Léon Gineste: “In our memory and for eternity, he remains just.” Of course, he is a “just man”, but just about what? Just for whom? It seems those questions are left unanswered.
Other aspects of the inscription are equally puzzling, like the date, February 14, 1877. It suggests that this is the date that Francois-Marie de Chefdebien died. Or is it the day on which the monument was erected? And it is said that this person is the founder of the Order of the Philadelphians, but it seems an unlikely suggestion, as the order was founded in 1779, more than a century before this monument was erected. Our information states that the founder of the lodge was indeed one Francois de Chefdebien, but he lived from 1753 until 1814. It is of course possible that the commemoration stone was for his son or grandson, both of whom could be given the name of their illustrious grandfather. But we should not rule out the possibility that the mausoleum was indeed created to the memory of the founder of the lodge and that the date is indeed the date of its inauguration and has nothing to do with the date on which a Francois de Chefdebien may have died.

But a more important question remains: why this monument was built, and why specifically it was placed here. A short distance away, near where the road splits, there is another funerary monument, commemorating an accidental yet fatal death on that spot. Yet, there can be no confusion between these two monuments: one was built following the death of a man, whereas our commemoration stone seems to have an entirely different goal. And that is what makes its location so bizarre. To this, we add that its orientation towards the cardinal points is of interest. As to its carvings, we note that there are three crosses, one per side, which indeed means that one side remained blank. The “back” of the stone, away from the Castellas, has no such cross… or anything else; it is a blank, unused canvas. Finally, on top, we find another cross, made of wrought iron, in the shape of a Celtic cross. This cross is orientated towards the road and the Castellas.

Three tombs along the road

Whether or not a mortal coil lies underneath this obelisk, the fact remains that the road along which it sits dates back to Antiquity. Between the obelisk and the castle, and thus by default on the other side of the road from the obelisk, we note a series of constructions that are within the realm of the dead… such as, for example, the infamous tomb of Pontils, better known as the “Tomb of Arques”, or another tomb situated along that same road, near Serres, which contains the mortal coil of the last inhabitant of Perillos.
Indeed, the sceptics can once again argue that we have here another visit of our old dear friend Mr. Coincidence, but it seems that coincidence is not very innovative and repeats itself ad nauseam. Failing his presence, we should perhaps ask whether there is a tradition or custom in which people would want to be buried next to a road. And even the sceptics would have to admit that, indeed, there is such a tradition. Indeed, this tradition was in vogue with a group of esotericists known as the “Polaires”, who were specifically interested in sites that were linked with the solar cycle, as well as the stars that were visible at night.
One only needs to look at the circular layout of Castellas to realise that in origin, this site was an ancient cult site, linked with the cycles of time, so important to our ancient ancestors, before the perils of tribal wars and invasions forced them to convert this temple into a fort. But as this was in origin sacred ground, we would expect to find certain ancient burials in this area – which is exactly what archaeologists have stumbled across.
We thus note that this area was an ancient sacred area and that the de Chefdebien family around 1877 wanted to inscribe their presence in it, by erecting the obelisk.

Illuminati or illumination?

But we have digressed. When we look towards the castle from the mausoleum, we notice three small buildings in the vineyard in front. They appear to be maintenance huts, located on top of a type of subterranean aqueduct designed to bring water to the vineyards. The little buildings are constructed in a straight line, are equidistant… and aligned to the mausoleum! We have to ask the question what was first: the little stone buildings located on top of the water, or the mausoleum? If the stone buildings, then we note that it is likely that there was in origin a small stone building where the mausoleum now stands…
The Chefdebien obelisk is located on top of the water that runs underneath, a fact which is still very apparent for anyone who stops and inspects the monument. And it thus seems logical to assume that the aqueduct is older than the monument, for otherwise, the aqueduct would not have been constructed under the monument – a very difficult task to accomplish even today. Which reveals that the Chefdebien, who could have located this monument anywhere where they desired, wanted to position it on top of running water… This cannot be a coincidence… and it goes against all logic, for any engineer would have questioned the family why they did not move the memorial a few feet to the left or the right, rather than sit on top of an underground pipe.

Mortuary rites, water… there are plenty of them in the region, from water rushing over the dead kings of Aragon in San Juan de la Pena, to a similar installation in Rennes-le-Château, if not Perillos, etc. But when we then make the connection with Saunière, we end up with La Sanch… an organisation which was financially supported by families such as Zagarriga and… de Chefdebien! Lest anyone would dare to think we make such things up as we go along, those Thomasses should read the details of a statue created in Barcelona in 1666, work carried out by order of this family, to fulfil the promise made when their son Gaspard was diagnosed with an incurable illness, but was miraculously healed in 1639. The statue of the Virgin, the so-called “Virgin of Çagarriga”, was placed in the Centre d’Art Sacré of Ille-sur-Têt, not far from Arles-sur-Tech and Prats-de-Mollo. All of these places were and are frequented by La Sanch. We hope it helps to illuminate the minds of those who begin to see a vast puzzle with several pieces, of which Rennes-le-Château is but one corner.

More pieces

Let us conclude by adding a few more pieces of this puzzle. When we look at the list of the “pioneers” of the Philadephian Lodge of Narbonne, we find the same name of the family whose ancestors had recuperated the “Hautpoul Cross” from the cemetery of Rennes-le-Château at the time of the French Revolution. Two other families on this list are known to have been financiers of the Catholic college in Narbonne where Saunière taught. A fourth family is yet another leading family of Narbonne, one that was frequented by Alfred… and where he was even hospitalised. And it is to be believed that it was thanks to such lodgings that he was able to get close to the Chambord family… and other families that were predisposed in trying to establish an ancient sacred regime in France.
It seems indeed to be the case that the Chefdebien family was a vital piece of the puzzle. Their motto was “Dux, fui, erumque sumper”: “Chef I was, I am, I always will be” and the name of the founding father of the lodge was “Franciscus eques a capite galeato”, which means “knight with the helmeted chef”…

André Douzet