#also LE CORBU MENTIONED!!!!!)

[vonlipvig]

RIP robert smirke you would have loved being in the labyrinth

[y4s2-20192020]

Touch, look, interaction, sensibility, senses, proxemics, distance ... how could all of these be perceived ? What is the focal point of looking at them? Where could these occasions lead us to? How could we generalize them? Or should we? And if we should then why ?

The starting point is the exploration of boundaries starting from Bangkok, where the most common event with most blurred personal boundaries happens to be Songkran - Thai new year. While looking at a certain event or occasion there is always a main point and idea that it carries but what is most interesting about events is what hides behind the idea, what happens behind “closed doors”, what is the darkside, secret, mystery, that nobody speaks, writes or thinks about, or does but society gets to ignore it. This is a perfect occasion in exploring first key points mentioned above, as Songkran apart from fun and religious beliefs does have its dark side - Sexual harassment, about which many statistics, research and studies have been made where majority of visitors despite their gender identity, sexual orientation, go through harassment

One of the topics of study is an event that is not directly embedded inside Songkran, but has originated from it - Pain To Power #donttellmehowtodress - a demonstration leaded by Thai model Cindy Bishop, the point of event was to tell government to stop telling woman not to dress attractively during the event but to tell violent people to stop being violent.

My own research about violence starts from psychological exploration of an individual and the crowd. What is the vulnerability of the crowd? What makes individual (part of crowd) vulnerable? Does the psychology/actions of individual changed under the effect of the crowd?

This is where it gets impossible to have one sharp and clear answer on each of these questions, but if we survey famous scholar psychologists they do have an answer, like Momboisse and Berlonghis research about types of crowds where they name four different types: Casual, Conventional, Expressive and Aggressive, from which we can conclude that Songkran falls under Expressive and Aggressive types as first expresses one or more emotions based on religious beliefs, political rally and so on, while the second is where crowd turns into aggressive mobs and becomes violent.

Meanwhile Le Bon and Charles Robert Darwin focus on individual or plural psychology and criminology reasons, where Le Bon identifies three stages of the crowd: Submergence, Contagion, Suggestion, depending on which we could say that Songkran falls under Submergence and Contagion as these two explore how the individuals in the crowd lose their sense of individual self and personal responsibility, as well as individuals in the crowd tend to unquestioningly follow the predominant ideas and emotions of the crowd. As for second study of Charles Robert Darwin - anthropological criminology explains how crowd behaviors is heavily influenced by the loss of responsibility of individual and impression of universality of behavior.

What actually drives the individual to violence as being part of the crowd? Could it be culture? Lack of interpersonal distance? Nudity? After comprehensive study made based on important sources it could be said that generally culture is based on seeing woman or any person having what is considered female behavior more weak as through past centuries women were seen only at home, not being able to have work or to be independent individuals.

Lack of interpersonal distance is based on study of proxemics where there are several stages of distances which are not respected though public events.

As for nudity depending on study it is considered that people exposing more skin are seen more vulnerable rather than ones that are more covered.

If we explore all these studies and examples mentioned in this text closer we will understand that nudity and culture could be one of the influences of interactions but eventually almost everything is based on many individuals gathering and tightening up in one space where the physical distance defines their positive or negative behaviors. Therefore the path of investigation leads us to one generalized word representing discussion mentioned above - Intimacy.

As intimacy contains proxemics, view of culture, desire or rejection of nudity, ignorance or lack of individuality in the crowd or separately individual behavior itself.

After arriving to the main focus of research interviews and experiments were conducted based on the main topic-intimacy. Where discovery was made that for each person intimacy and whole interpretation of it is very different, based on interview for some it is positive, for some negative, for some its alive organism, others material or mental, for almost all the respondents color of intimacy is very dark regardless of if seen positive or negative, it is outstanding color, noticeable, in this way we could conclude that intimacy plays very important role in human beings everyday life physically and mentally as well.

So could we see intimacy as love? Violence? Freedom? Proxemics? Individual? Personal? Public? All or none? And what tools do we need to explore intimacy deeper? Could intimacy be objectified? Could it be transformed into skin and bones? Space? Could we let people have artificial and different experience of intimacy based on their own desires? And finally could intimacy lead to creation of something brand new?

This is a sum up diagram of the projects so far collecting all research. After which I started thinking how to answer all those questions based on intimacy today. I have arrived to the scholars exploring standards of a human being to understand how could this be interpreted today and if this interpretation would serve for creation of something new based on todays world. 

VITRUVIAN MAN 1940 Leonardo da Vinci

“The proportions of the human body according to Vitruvius” “For the human body is so designed by nature that the face, from the chin to the top of the forehead and the lowest roots of the hair, is a tenth part of the whole height; the open hand from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger is just the same; the head from the chin to the crown is an eighth, and with the neck and shoulder from the top of the breast to the lowest roots of the hair is a sixth; from the middle of the breast to the summit of the crown is a fourth. If we take the height of the face itself, the distance from the bottom of the chin to the under side of the nostrils is one third of it; the nose from the under side of the nostrils to a line between the eyebrows is the same; from there to the lowest roots of the hair is also a third, comprising the forehead. The length of the foot is one sixth of the height of the body; of the forearm, one fourth; and the breadth of the breast is also one fourth. The other members, too, have their own symmetrical proportions, and it was by employing them that the famous painters and sculptors of antiquity attained to great and endless renown. Similarly, in the members of a temple there ought to be the greatest harmony in the symmetrical relations of the different parts to the general magnitude of the whole. Then again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centred at his navel, the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle described therefrom.” 

MODULOR 1943 Le Corbusier

Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture. The system is based on human measurements, the double unit, the Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio. Le Corbus- ier described it as a “range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things”. 

Vitruvian + Modulor

With the Modulor, Le Corbusier sought to introduce a scale of visual measures that would unite two virtually incompatible systems: the Anglo Sax- on foot and inch and the French metric system. Whilst he was intrigued by ancient civilisations who used measuring systems linked to the human body: elbow (cubit), finger (digit), thumb (inch) etc., he was troubled by the metre as a measure that was a forty-millionth part of the meridian of the earth 

Nowadays/Proxemics/2020

Nowadays we are not only speaking about a man separately or the architectural space in correspondance with human body but also envirnment aound the man that does not concern only architecture but is a conceptual, intangible environment based on psychology and confortability. 

Finally we arrive to the man of today which is the mic of Vitruvian man, modulor in contemporary world, defining the proxemics of a man of today. 

Now to start exploring the design process itself I have created a narrative image representing the qualities and aims of the project itself. Each image has an author and is chosen carefully. The exploration starts from the crowd continues with density - group - space - talking architecture - proxemics and continues with translating into the new space. Where in the middle we have some important examples like performance of Marina Abramovic and Ulai where they have stood in the narrow entrance of exhibit space nude - whats interesting here is the behaviors of the people - how they felt uncomfortable but firstly starting passing though them very slowly but suddenly one couple passed fast and rest of the crowd started mimicking their behavior and curculation because faster and faster though them.

Or in example of the book Learning from Las Vegas, how sometimes architecture speaks for itself and becomes very clear to people.

Also the project by Rebecca Horn, who dedicated whole carrier exploring the limits of human body, where in one of her projects created a transparent box full of metal tubes and stood in it to indicate that is exactly the limit of her own body.

Another important example is work by Bruce Nauman - Green Corridor, where he had created very narrow corridor exactly 50cm as proxemic intimate space, where people were passing though and felt extremely uncomfortable due to the size and color as well.

Or Walter De Maria, Mile Long Chalk Drawing - we see Walter himself lying on floor and his feet touches line from chock and distance of lines is double of hight of him. Two lines are 1 mile long. So there is a comparison between measure of body and measure of geography, scale of individual and scale of earth thats why also its considered as land art.

And many other examples of same type.

As you can see while explaining on the right side there is timeline kind of grouping all these images into a cluster. Like proxemic, people/space, freedom clautripoobia, inside/outside, threshold and how all of it could result into social behavior.

The design invades the spatial typology of Bangkok that represents continuity in terms of crowd that is not shaped in any way. It becomes a way of designing behavior of the people, it is what space defines rather than what is a definition of the space.

Summing up the research based on human proxemics influencing different social behavior has led to a shape mimicking the proxemic rules.

Here we see the representation of the size of proxemics, followed by combination with new human standard, with shape of movement respecting the rules, then transformation of these measure into three platforms and framing them - in this way we have three immobile spaces - intimate, personal and social. In the final result it is the combination of all three into one mobile space varying from intimate to public, providing threshold for people placed in dense spaces.

First site choice is open space - Khaosan road  - one of the most crowded streets in Bangkok during the day as well as during the night. The street where all the rules of interpersonal distance are absolutely disrespected.

The design is influencing social behaviors, giving shape to a crowd, exploring different ways of reactions and choices, spotting sequence of moving bodies in reference to proxemic rules provided by mobile spaces.

We see how the space, notion of the crowd becomes an experience. There might be a desire to be part of the crowd cited by this space or there might be not.

The second choice of site was to challenge the design to adjust to more enclosed space where people are not given too much freedom avoiding the “black box” passage. The space varies from intimate space which is on three sides - centre, right and left and personal distance in the middle. The size, span of time and movement is organized in a way that the whole space ends up narrow disrespecting the interpersonal distance at all times in order to influence and study human behaviors responding to this specific space.

It is not a conventional space, there is no specific aim of being in it, no specific desire of accomplishing something, it is up to people to decide weather it is connecting something of separating. What space does is brings people with no aim together in a neutral space experiencing the social distances. It is the idea of human body passing the threshold, human body reacting negatively or positively or even indifferently to threshold.

So in both cases we see the circulation of the crowd depending on how the layout of threshold would be in that specific timing the crowd automatically shapes itself according to it, not only being part of threshold but also after passing it people would tend to maintain the behavior at least for some seconds.

Here is represented the space containing the black box - the black box is most important element having measure of intimate space which is immobile, and the outer spaces move in and out of the black box making different variations of proxemic. The span of the space passing though each proxemic phase happens in 4 minutes and 30 seconds, spanning from one to another for one minute and half. Where here we see span from public - social - personal and intimate.

As well as the same happened in enclosed space in Silom road, but instead of C shaped elements are vertical slabs that stop on sides on intimate space, giving less freedom in terms of open space.

Elements are composed from lightweight scaffolding framed into a eco virgin plastic.

So if people always have possibility in choice weather to experience dense and claustrophobic environment or pass though free spatial arrangements that lasts for some minutes.

Spacial behavior predicts social behavior, they are directly connected. If in other cases for example domestic architecture is being built depending on human needs and after deep exploration of human behaviors, this case is organized other way around, first we build limits and then explore human social behaviors according to them.

The exploration is how do people use the space in reference to the limits and very importantly - in reference to one another.

It is known for example by the narrative references of Bruce Nauman that the narrow space resulted into extreme uncomfortability in human beings - this space being the same measure as in my own project, also important aspect of contagion of the behavior in case fo Marian Abramovic and Ulai. For example how in the narrow space we see only one person but depending on the culture of contagion we can assume that despite of uncomfortably people do tend to mimic each other, so even if the space is uncomfortable it could be contagious, as well as comfortable which is more easier to be contagious which we see in upper example of the public space how people tend to grow and grow in density.  So generally the usage of the space can span from individual to collective and that 100% depends on the limits that space provides + the behavior that people choose.

So basically the strategy of occupying the space is completely free, even though it provides limits it does promote the form of liberation - the question is how? Firstly people represented in the image do not have a gender, social status, religion due to diversity of the crowd that appears to be in spaces like khaosan road or Silom, they are just - people - free people.

so More free people are, better we can realize their social behaviors, the deign of the space does impose the rules - which are proxemic rules, building up the limits which does shape the crowd, puts the people into specific point, specific position, condition, make them experience specific emotions, but in the end the deign is not violent, it doesn’t force people to end up in an open or enclosed space, there is always another choice of avoidance - this is what interesting about the space, all the possible variations of reactions, as Socrates said: “sometimes you put walls up not to keep people out, but to see who cares enough to break them down.” - so the design does impose the the limits in face of walls but it is 100% up to people how to react to it. The threshold in the end could result into overcrowded occupation shaping the crowd while being in threshold or after passing it or being completely empty shaping absolutely nothing - and the most important point is that each scenario would be a success, because both responses are the specific reaction to the space that predicts the space itself between one person to another by a free choice. So today architecture is nothing else but the creation of proxemic limits chosen to be experienced or not.

[wilsondownes]

The Red Serpent: 2. Standing on the White Rock

Cet Ami, comment vous le présenter? Son nom demeura un mystère, mais son nombre est celui d'un sceau célèbre. Comment vous le décrire? Peut-être comme le nautonnier de l'arche impérissable, impassible comme un colonne sur son roc blanc, scrutant vers le midi, au-delà du roc noir. This Friend, how does one introduce him to you? His name will remain a mystery, but his number is that of a famous seal. How does one describe him to you? Perhaps as the pilot of the imperishable ark, unmoved as a column on his white rock, looking attentively towards the south, beyond the black rock.

From this stanza it appears that, over and above the mentioned manuscripts, certain pieces of information about the person the poet calls his friend are also crucial in solving the mystery of the Razès. The poet holds this figure in such high regard that he not only refers to him in each of the first four stanzas, but also dedicates this whole stanza entirely to him. Besides the clues about his friend in this stanza, one knows that this is the person to whom the manuscripts belong. In the next stanza, the poet again speaks of the 'parchments of this Friend'. As these parchments almost certainly belong to Pierre Plantard – as is explicitly stated in the notarized documents – it would seem this friend is indeed none other than Pierre Plantard himself. The poem is also widely linked to him and his friends. 2.1 The Plantards and the enigma of Rennes-le-Château The question which now arises is why the poet would regard Pierre Plantard as such an important figure. According to him, Pierre – and actually the whole Plantard family – is the pivot on which the secret of the Razès hinges. He also states that the parchments, which belong to them, contain the key to the solving of the whole mystery. There are strong indications that right from the start, albeit behind the scenes, the Plantards were connected with the mystery of Rennes-le-Château as well as the events surrounding Saunière. It also appears that one of them was in contact with Saunière as well as Boudet. According to the writer of Le cercle d'Ulysse, Jean Delaude, Saunière met Charles Plantard, Pierre Plantard's grandfather, during the former's visit to Paris. It seems that this meeting took place at the house of Claude Debussy, who is elsewhere mentioned as Grand Master of the Rosicrucian Order, the Prieuré de Sion, at the time. In 1892, Charles Plantard, a journalist, apparently also visited Rennes-le-Château. In the preface to the 1978 facsimile edition of Henri Boudet's writing, La vraie langue celtique et le cromleck de Rennes-les-Bains, Pierre Plantard states that his grandfather visited this town on the 2nd June, 1892, and later recorded his impressions of Saunière and Boudet. During this visit, Boudet also gave Charles Plantard a signed copy of his book with a handwritten dedication to him inscribed in it. According to the writer of Les descendants Mérovingiens, Saunière tried to contact one of the Plantards on his death bed. He apparently beseeched Dr. Paul Courrent (1861-1952) to summon Jean XXIII, Charles Plantard's nephew. Jean was the descendant of the oldest line of the Plantard family, who had a right to the parchments. Saunière was in all probability not aware of the fact that Jean's father, Pierre, in 1871 waived his right in favour of his brother, Charles. Jean therefore never complied with Saunière's request and as a result the parchments remained in 'Rhedae', that is Rennes-le-Château. In August of 1938, another Plantard visited the area – this time the 18 year-old Pierre Plantard, who spent a week at the house of Marie Dénarnaud, Saunière's former housekeeper and trusty companion. The writer of Le cercle d'Ulysse states that Noël Corbu said in an interview in May of 1961 with Marina Grey of the radio station ORTF on the programme 'Roue Tourne' that during this visit, Marie Dénarnaud handed over to Pierre all the correspondence his grandfather had with Saunière, as well as several other archival records. According to the same source, Pierre Plantard again visited the area in 1966 and this time called on Noël Corbu. It could be that these letters and archival documents were the main source of information on Charles Plantard's association with Saunière. Every one of the writings referring to this can be linked to Pierre Plantard, which strongly suggests that he, together with the archivalia in his possession, were their principle sources. 2.2 Independent evidence Due to the personal nature of the events, hardly any additional objective sources are available. There is, however, information that correlates with the above. In the mid-1990's, for instance, it was proven that the signature appearing in Charles Plantard's copy of La vraie langue celtique corresponds with Boudet’s. In Web of Gold, Guy Patton states that during this time, a letter signed by Boudet, which he had sent to the Bodleian Library in Oxford, was also discovered, along with a copy of Boudet's book. The signatures were proven to have been made by the same person. Another piece of evidence, dating from the 19th century, is a commemorative plaque that I stumbled upon in 1998 during a visit to Versailles outside Paris. Right at the entrance to the palace there are a number of plaques acknowledging donations and one of them bears the inscription 'M. Plantard 1891'. I must admit I was quite surprised to come across the name Plantard here. However, what struck me most was the date – the exact same year in which Saunière is said to have discovered the parchments in the church of Rennes-le-Château. Although some researchers believe it to have been in 1887, Saunière singled out the first-mentioned year by inscribing 'Mission 1891' on the Visigoth pillar outside the church. The exact same date also appears on the Plantard coat of arms. There is therefore reason enough to believe that the Plantards' association with the Razès goes back much further than Pierre Plantard and also that there is indeed some kind of link between them and the whole enigma of Rennes-le-Château – which would of course be in accordance with the said mentioning of this family in the parchments. Several of Pierre Plantard's friends were clearly of the opinion that this family played a considerable role in the whole affair, hence their writings about it. As was already mentioned, the poet too regarded Pierre Plantard as an exceptional individual, which is evident from his description of his friend in this stanza. 2.3 Name and number When introducing his friend, the poet first of all refers to his name. Pierre Plantard's full names were Pierre Athanase Marie Plantard de Saint-Clair. The name Plantard apparently comes from 'plant-ard', which means 'rejeton ardent' – 'fiery/sprouting shoot'. One Madeleine Blancasall states that Sigebert, the son of Dagobert II, adopted this name and that his descendants carried it to this day. The Plantards allegedly acquired the added name of Saint-Clair after the marriage of Jean XIV Plantard with Marie de Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in 1546. Interestingly, during the years of the Second World War, Pierre Plantard also called himself Pierre de France, by means of which he possibly wanted to signify that he is the rightful king of France. This would imply that he had already seen himself as a contender for the French throne from an early age. This claim stems from events dating back to the Merovingian era, when the majors of the palace dethroned these monarchs and came to the throne themselves. They were later known as the Carolingians – after King Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great. The Catholic Church is said to have broken a treaty with King Clovis by acknowledging the Carolingians as rulers and as a result, the descendants of the Merovingians, i.e. the Plantards, still lay claim to the French throne. The Plantards, however, are only one of several families who lay, or have laid, claim to the throne of France. Besides them, the Orleans branch of the French dynasty has also raised their hands, as have the Chambords – the descendants of Charles X. The latter's last contender, the count of Chambord, died without an heir in 1883, after which this family, according to the writer of Le cercle d'Ulysse, shifted their support to the Plantards. 'It was they who formed the Merovingian movement which still exists today'. The question arises why the Plantards are convinced that they have a greater claim to the French throne than any of the other French dynasties who have ascended the throne since the Merovingians. Is this because they are the 'oldest' Frankish dynasty, or is there another reason altogether? The poet supplies some clues ... 2.4 Descendants of David According to the poet, his friend's name is a mystery. It is typically said of God that His name is a mystery. These words of the poet could therefore be indicative of some or other conviction that the Plantards actually are of 'godly' descent. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail claim it to be possible that the Plantards are descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. When questioned about this, Pierre Plantard, however, refused to commit himself to such a belief, saying it could not be proven as these events took place too far back in time. He then rather emphasized the fact that Jesus had brothers. He reiterated, though, that the Merovingians are from Judaic descent and specifically the Davidian lineage. This claim makes one wonder whether some individuals actually relate the meaning of the name Plantard, 'the sprouting shoot', to the 'shoot' from King David's family line referred to in the Bible – one of the metaphors used for the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 11:1). The poet further states that his friend has a 'number', to wit that of a 'famous seal', which undoubtedly refers to the so-called seal of Solomon (the star of David). This seal consists of two triangles placed over one another in such a way that they form a hexagram ('hexa' meaning 'six'). One often sees the hexagram superimposed over the map of France. One of the covers of the magazine Circuit, the mouthpiece of the Prieuré de Sion, which was established in 1956 and of which Pierre Plantard once was the editor, shows exactly this. Pierre Plantard's association with this hexagram would therefore correspond to his chosen name, Pierre de France. The reference to the seal of Solomon obviously again leads to the house of David. The Plantards' association with this seal would then be symbolic of their claim to have been born into King David's family line.

Fig. 6. A cover of the Circuit showing a  map of France with a hexagram

2.5 The pilot of the imperishable ark Next, the poet compares his friend to the pilot of a ship. It is, however, not just any ship, but an 'ark', and one that is imperishable, which inadvertently reminds one of Noah's ark that came through the Flood unscathed. This metaphor refers to the secret order of the Prieuré de Sion. In their statutes, the Grand Master is called the 'nautonnier', the same word the poet uses for 'pilot'. The Prieuré de Sion is therefore described as an imperishable ark; imperishable because of its continued existence throughout the centuries, according to occult tradition. Pierre Plantard stated that he was admitted into this order on the 10th July, 1943, on the recommendation of the priest Francois Ducaud-Bourget. According to Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau, the Prieuré de Sion dates back to 1188, or even earlier, when it was called the Order of Sion. The families associated with this order include the St. Clairs, Lorraines and Stuarts. Although most researchers do not take these claims seriously, the name Order of Sion does correspond to the so-called Realm of Sion, a well-known order from the 19th century that is also associated with some of these families. That these two orders are in fact one and the same, is evident from Chaumeil's remark in Le trésor du triangle d'or [25] ('The treasure of the Golden Triangle') that a type of Scottish Rite Freemasonry that was earlier typically associated with the Stuarts, actually resides under the Prieuré de Sion: 'The upper grades or degrees of this Freemasonry ... were the lower grades or degrees of the Prieuré de Sion.' [26] This was most likely also true of the Realm of Sion. Pierre Plantard told Henry Lincoln and his co-authors that this Prieuré de Sion was not really a secret organisation, but rather a 'discreet society' that had to do with a 'family affair'. It appears that it was only run as a secret organisation at times. When Pierre Plantard was admitted into the Prieuré de Sion, he was already the Grand Master of another secret order called Alpha Galates. He was afforded this position at the young age of 22 after the retirement of count Maurice Moncharville, who was also his mentor. It is astonishing that figures like Prof. Louis le Fur, who held a senior position in the Vichy administration, and Hans Adolf von Moltke, a German diplomat from one of the most famous aristocratic German families, could look up to such a young person as Grand Master. It most certainly could have had something to do with Pierre Plantard's alleged descent. In the 21st January, 1943, edition of the Alpha Galates' official paper, the Vaincre, Prof. Louis le Fur states that a 'great German, one of the Masters of our Order' (Hans Adolf von Moltke) referred to Pierre Plantard as 'Pierre de France', with all the monarchistic undertones inherent in this title. According to Le Fur, Von Moltke had said: 'I have the pleasure to say, before my departure for Spain, that our Order has at last found a chief worthy of it in the person of Pierre de France. It is therefore with total confidence that I depart to perform my mission; for while not deluding myself about the perils I run in discharging my duty, I know that until my last breath my last watchword will consist in recognition of Alpha and fidelity to its chief'. In 1955-1956, an internal struggle is said to have raged within the Prieuré de Sion, which seemingly resulted in the establishing of their own (another) Prieuré de Sion by Pierre Plantard, André Bonhomme, Jean Delaval and Armand Defago. This Prieuré de Sion was registered in France in 1956. According to Jania MacGillivray, the dispute had something to do with a family feud. In the article 'The treasure, the priest and the Priory' she writes: 'The person who holds the key to all these mysteries, if mysteries they are, is Pierre Plantard, whose magnificent family ring, bearing the inscription 'Et in Arcadia ego', is a continual reminder of a better world somewhere ... And if one wonders why Chaumeil wrote his book, his reply is contained in an allusion to a schism in the Plantard family some years ago. One branch, he hints, held that the secret of the Priory of Sion belonged to the Church; the other claimed that it was public property.' [27] Very little doubt exists that the alleged unlawful moving of the parchments at the end of 1955 by demand of Pierre's uncle, Etienne Plantard, had something to do with this split. The group associated with Pierre Plantard clearly belongs to the part of the family that is of the conviction that the 'secrets' of the Prieuré belong to the public. The registration of the 'new' Prieuré de Sion, as well as the publication of the Merovingian genealogies by 'Henri Lobineau' (both in 1956) were clearly related to the disclosure of the 'secrets' – and in particular a first step in the announcement of the Plantards' claims. In 1967, the same year Du Plantier published Dossiers secrets d'Henry Lobineau, this group went one step further by publishing Gérard de Sède's Le trésor maudit de Rennes-le-Château, which obviously drew a lot of attention thereto. In 1982, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was published, in which the English-speaking world got acquainted with Pierre Plantard and his claims. Subsequently Dan Brown has also employed these themes in his bestseller, The Da Vinci Code. In the meantime, Pierre Plantard allegedly warded off a complete schism in the order, after which, from 1963-1981, he, Gaylord Freeman and Antonio Merzagora together were at the helm. During this time, Le serpent rouge came onto the scene, linking the 'friend' in the poem to the grand mastership of the Prieuré de Sion. The poet's use of the word '[p]erhaps (as the pilot of the imperishable ark)' in the description of his friend could be related to the expectation that Pierre Plantard would become Grand Master due to his descent from one of the exceptional European families, or otherwise to this joint grand mastership. It appears that on the 17th January, 1981, Pierre Plantard was indeed elected Grand Master, a position he held until the 10th July, 1984. It was during this time that he supplied the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail with copies of the notarized documents – possibly the final step in lending credibility to his claim to the French throne, as these documents 'confirm' his descent from the Merovingian rulers. He was in all probability unaware of the fact that at least one of these documents was fabricated. As was mentioned earlier, Michael Baigent and his co-authors suggest in The Messianic Legacy that the group responsible for the forgery was the Knights of Malta. This group is almost certainly connected with the 'other' faction Jania MacGillivray refers to in her article and they most likely wanted to prevent Pierre Plantard from successfully following through with his claim to the French throne. What was to be Pierre Plantard's big moment, subsequently contrariwise led to his claims being entirely discredited. The earlier assertions by his friends that the coded documents were in fact forgeries only contributed to the perception that the whole thing was a scam. To me, it seems highly likely that harming Pierre Plantard's reputation were attempts made by the 'other faction' to sweep everything in under the carpet once again. In Key to the Sacred Pattern: The Untold Story of Rennes-le-Château, Henry Lincoln calls it 'agitated attempts ... to establish that the entire affaire is a fraud' [28]. By discrediting the whole 'affaire', they diverted the public's attention away from any real secrets that could be contained in the documents in the French National Library. In so doing, this faction tried to ensure these would remain secret due to their conviction that they belong to the Catholic Church. It is entirely possible that there are indeed real secrets between all the documents that have been deposited in the French National Library and that the secret woven into the poem Le serpent rouge, and for which the coded texts are to serve as clues, is one of them. As was mentioned earlier, these texts had not been devised by De Chérisey, as he claimed, and most probably relate to a real centuries old secret of the Hautpoul-Blanchefort family. The reason the poet dedicated this entire stanza to Pierre Plantard was maybe to ensure that, once the riddle was solved and the 'treasure' found, Plantard would inextricably be connected with it. His acclaim of Plantard was possibly meant to prove that he was worthy of the 'treasure'. This praise is especially noteworthy if one takes into account that it most probably came from Jean Cocteau himself. It makes one wonder even more whether the numerous attempts to discredit the person of Pierre Plantard actually project a true image. In view of the fact that the greater part of Plantard's life in all probability is not public knowledge, and that due to the secret nature thereof, he could probably not defend himself, one should perhaps reserve judgement. 2.6 A column on his white rock The poet goes on to compare his friend to a pillar standing on 'his' white rock. The most famous pillar in the Rennes-le-Château mystery surely is the one in which Saunière allegedly discovered the parchments and on which he carved the words 'Penitence, Penitence' and 'Mission 1891'. He subsequently planted it upside-down in the garden of the church and fixed a statue of the crowned Virgin Mary on top. A clear photograph of Saunière next to this pillar is to be found in Pierre Jarnac's Histoire du trésor de Rennes-le-Château [29]. The poet's mentioning of a white rock can therefore imply that he is referring to something in the Razès region – and it is not hard to find exactly that. At the northern entrance to the Sals Valley at Rennes-les-Bains there is a huge white rock called Blanchefort, which literally means 'white fort'. On the back of Louis Vazart's Abrégé de l'histoire des Francs is a photograph of Pierre Plantard's son, Thomas, sitting on Blanchefort, with the Sals Valley in the background. This picture depicts exactly what the poet describes – a Plantard on a 'white rock'. It is therefore without any doubt this famous rock the poet is referring to (see Figure 7). The poet's friend is therefore standing on Blanchefort, looking south, and past the 'black rock'. There is indeed also exactly such a rock in the area, called Roque Nègre, which literally means 'black rock'. It lies just south of Blanchefort, a bit lower down on the mountainside. The poet's friend is, in other words, looking past this rock in the direction of Rennes-les-Bains and the hills south of the town. The description in the poem therefore corresponds exactly to the topography of the Blanchefort area just north of Rennes-les-Bains.

Fig. 7. The back cover of Louis Vazart's  book

One tends to miss them at first, but the directions which the poet indicates – some less explicitly than others – are in actual fact crucial. In the first stanza, he only speaks of a journey through unknown parts for which the 'parchments' are to serve as a guide, but in this stanza, he gives the first clear geographical directions – to all appearance from where the route through the area begins. In the following stanzas, he describes the route south from there. As could be expected, given the connection between the parchments and the Hautpoul-Blanchefort family, this particular area had been part of their domain. As in the first stanza, white and black are once again juxtaposed. In this case, it is the white rock and the black rock. This whole stanza is also written in parallels: The friend is introduced, but also described; the poet speaks of his name, but also his number; he is described as a pilot, but also a pillar. Dualism is clearly the name of the game in Le serpent rouge. [25] Chaumeil, J. 1979. Nice: Alain Lefeuvre. [26] Ibid., p.136. [27] 1979. French translation in Bonne Soirée, 14 August, 1980. [28] Lincoln, H. 1997. Gloucestershire: Windrush, p.147. [29] Jarnac, P. 1998. Belisane: Cazilhac.