14 Sep
14Sep


In 1974, Philippe de Chérisey wrote in a postscript in a letter to French author, “Pierre Jarnac” (Michel Vallet):


29 January 1974
P.S. Do you know that the famous manuscripts supposedly discovered by the Abbé Saunière were composed in 1965? And that I took responsibility for being the author?
Yours sincerely

Philippe de Chérisey

Why does he say 'he took responsibility'? Why not say 'i am the author of the parchments'?

Cherisey took responsibility for being the author? 

Hmmmmmm? 

We know Cherisey is not stupid. He is in fact very intelligent, very astute and very good with words. He knows exactly what he writes. Therefore what is the general difference between "taking" responsibility and "taking on" responsibility? Is there a significance in the word Cherisey used here - 'took'? 

When you take responsibility for something, it generally means that you accept responsibility for an act in an appropriate way.

However, when you take on responsibility for something, it generally means that you assume new responsibility for something you aren't or weren't expected to be responsible for.

I know elsewhere Cherisey is quite clear that he says he is the originator of the 'parchments' which makes his reply to Jarnac all the more mischievous!


UPDATE - Interview with Jean-Luc Chaumeil - on the website of Johan Netchacovitch, the Gazette de Rennes-le-Château. I have bold typed the relevant sentence.

Gazette de Rennes-le-Château: - One problem with de Chérisey's sources was raised by the discovery of the original text of the "Small Parchment", the famous Codex Bezae. Why doesn't he mention this unique source?
Jean-Luc Chaumeil: - Ah, that takes us to the very heart of the Plantard-Chérisey system! I'm not going to go over again what I've already written on your (internet) forums, but certain people obviously just don't want to understand... It gets annoying in the end. Pierre Plantard knew about the book by Fulcran Vigouroux and decided to "arrange" for the paternity of the parchments as it were to be attributed to Philippe. Citing Dom Cabrol was a red herring, a blind. It was the same with the magazine "CIRCUIT", another blind that appeared in several different versions. I'll give you another example... In an interview that Philippe granted me in 1973 he explained the origin of the Codex: "..I took the ancient uncial text at the Bibliothèque Nationale from the work of Dom Cabrol, Christian Archaeology, Shelf C25". I went there in person and what did I find in the shelf next to the one you mentioned? On shelf B was the Fulcran Vigouroux. That's a good example of the sort of traps and red herrings that those two specialised in. They would give a vague indication of something, but only the really curious inquirer would ever get onto the right track!!! In the light of that example I can state that Pierre Plantard was aware of the Fulcran Vigouroux manuscript! And anyone who’s not prepared to admit that are leading themselves astray..."

Why would Plantard 'arrange for the paternity of the parchments to be attributed to Phillippe, which actually matches what Cherisey said about 'taking responsibility' for the parchments. 

Did Plantard design them then?

And while i think about it - why does Chaumeil think that although Cherisey talked of Shelf C25, on shelf B was a book Plantard referred to - why does he think Cherisey would automatically know about shelf B?