Arcadia Discussion Zone

In 'Stone and Paper' Cherisey says 'As the Chrisme PX it became firmly entrenched as the sign designating the Roman Emperor Constantine's war cry in 312, "In hoc signo vinces", translated by abbé Saunière in his church as "Par ce signe tu le vaincras". The "le" is superfluous but enables him to have 22-letter phrase, although at this point de Chérisey does not say why this is important, and indicates the devil below the motto. In its original Latin it appears in the church at Rennes-les-Bains.'

Then he says something very wierd. In one of the translations the visual form of this 'sign' is described as a 'radiant hexagram'!, that the Greeks read as XPιστοσ and the Latins see as PaX’.

What is Cherisey up to here? When we know the famous vision of Constantine was the CHI RHO (XP) design......

The Chi-Ro is a preChristian symbol that was adopted by the Roman Emperor Constantine as his battle standard, supposedly after he had a dream in which he saw the symbol and heard the words "by this sign you shall conquer." Originally the symbol was a rune-binding or in other words a combination of letters woven together for good luck. The Chi-Ro is the first two letters of "Christ"

Thats what the Angels at Rennes said but it was a upside down 4
not the usual sign of the cross I was taught like the Kabbalah way

"And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle....."

"Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner".

This is the account of Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine in his Life of Constatine.

The report of Constantines vision, does not match the description of each cross. And it most certainly does not match Cheriseys definition that the sign was that of a 'radiant hexagram'.
I am certain that Cherisey would know what he was talking about!

How is the Chi-Rho is a preChristian symbol? It is specifically associated with Jesus Christ .....

Very interesting topic. The Chi Rho was, I believe, "Christianised" after the event but has Chaldean/Babylonian origins of an utterly un-christian nature. In fact, the same can probably be said of the motif of the cross itself, that most recognisable of modern-day Christian symbols. I found the article below to be quite interesting but I am unable to vouch for the integrity of the research or the standpoint of the writer - therefore any comments or discussion would be most welcome.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html

Hi Richard,

Yes, that excerpt was very interesting. I had no idea that the CHI RHO was much earlier than the vision of Constantine. I knew that Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus.

As for him being 'christian' - actually there is evidence that Constantine was 'Christian', but that he wavered and was unsure whther to adopt the religion fully. So i dont necessarily accept that Constantine being christian was all fake.

I was also interested to read that of the celtic sunwheel associations. In my article on LSR, the celtic sunwheel is present, and in actual fact, the celtic zodiac is used. I have my reasons why, which i do explain.

But i think alot of it is symbolic.

But still, why should Cherisey seemingly go completely mad and say the vision of Constantine was of a 'radiant hexagram'?
It is either in reference to the parchments Cherisey created (imho) that certainly has hidden geometry in them, or Cherisey was strying to impart something specific.
He said that Latins saw PAX, while the Greeks saw XP.

I am now wondering if PAX is a veiled reference to the de Negre tombstone??? In fact, Cherisey does go on to talk about this - saying 'it seems right that the device of the Shepherds of Arcadia ...that should be in Latin, should be justified by a Greek inscription and appears thus on the tombstone as P+X' ......Cherisey does provide a diagram to illustrate his point. It is different from the 'et in arcadia' tombstone we are used to!

All very confusing, and certainly fits Cherisey the joker : ) But more like the 'Fool' ..... hiding a truth amongst a load of rubbish and seemingly banal observations and inane banter: )

I must add too, that when Cherisey is talking about this ... it is in the context of the PAXDCLXXI in the larger parchment that when deciphered gives the 'bergere pas de tentation' code.

So the PAX (that he equates with a 'radiant hexagram') ... in fact it might be better to put the whole paragraph here:

'In the widest sense, PAX is a death sword, not so much the blissful nostalgia about which this World has held its breath since the death of Abel, but more the overcoming of strife' in the way that it is understood by our readers.
PAX has a visual form, signifying the famous vision of Constantine in 312, a radiant hexagram that the Greeks read as XPιστοσ and the Latins as PaX. It is a war cry: 'In this sign you shall conquer' accompanied a vision, a slogan common enough in the Christian world'

This translaction is from the RO51 p16 (Vi Marriott).

Nothing de Cherisey ever says is worth taking seriously (apart from his admission that he faked the "parchments") - and it is all to do with the mythology of the Priory of Sion - the long debunked Priory of Sion...

Agreed Sandy the PAXDCLXXI reference makes sense, could the CHI RHO symbol not also be interpreted as PAX, i.e P and X crossed ?? Such as this example from MM church RLC , note Jesus pointing up at it. Just a thought.


Regards
Nic

http://www.pillowarea.com/img/fl_images/3032.jpg

It's even got the Alpha and the Omega.
Sauniere's symbolism in his church wasn't "strange" after all.

Afraid I can' see the Alpha and Omega on that picture ( mind you my photography is bloody awful ).


Yep "nothing to see here, move along, move along".
Regards
Nic

Come, get your RLC Mystery T-Shirt, folks...
http://benewang.republika.pl/tshirty/symb/chiro2.jpg

Hi Nic,

Yes, of course i have seen that PX in the church at RLC.

There is more from 'Stone & Paper' ... which kind of skirts around the issues that Roger has talked of here. In fact, quite why some people peddaled the idea that once 'Stone & Paper' was out, it would show us how Cherisey had had such a good laugh at our expense all these years i will never know ....

Further to the above Cherisey states:

'The privilege that the Church assumed in taking on the emblem of a temporal prince, is written in a long conflict between imperial Byzantium and pontifical Rome. A parallel was drawn between the chasuble decorated by the chrismon symbol and the red cloak of the Emperor of Byzantium, which carried the emblem until the year 507, when Anastasius put in an appearance and adopted the white of the penitent. The Emperor of the Orient announced that he was going to devote his personal interest to public benefit. He was loudly applauded. This meant that the red robe with the chrismon embroidered in gold passed directly to the Papacy. That same year St Martin of Tours, ambassador of the orient in Gaul, was instructed to return the PAX to Clovis, the Merovingian King in whom the Church was happy to recognise the ‘Patrice’ and the ‘new Constantine’. A legendary illustration relates tot his event, where Saint Martin cuts his cloak in two, with a sword and gives half to a poor man in whom he fails to recognise the Roman emperor.
Arriving in Gaul, the sign of the PAX was replaced with the LABARUM or symbolic banner with its retention of the red and gold colours, whereas the war cry ‘In hoc signo Vinces’ became the Montjoie-Saint Denis'

I am thinking about what is being intimated here .... There is so much to work out : ) But this reminds me of the later oriflamme history ....

Elsewhere Cherisey describes the different sections of the bergere code and what it means. In one place he breaks the code in a different place from that of tradition, so that instead of 'bergere pas de tentation, que poussin tenier GARDENT LA CLEF' he simply says ''La Clef Par la Croix’ - 'The key of the Cross', presumably meaning the XP/Labarum? Its interesting because normally the 'bergere' cipher rendered, 'bergere pas de tentation, que poussin tenier GARDENT LA CLEF' assumes that Poussin Teniers 'guard the key' ....

I dont know about anyone else, but i always read 'By the Cross and this Horse of God' together as a unit, after PAX 681 : )

So, do Poussin and Teniers guard a key? I always thought the key was 681. Perhaps now it is the Cross?

Actually Le Cour talks of this ... i have his book (from abe books). He even furnishes a drawing of the Pax Labarum.

And re-reading an article by Peter O'Reilly he draws attention to the error Lincoln made when translating the 'Et In Arcadia' tombstone. Lincoln suggested the letter X on the tombstone stood for K (or hard C) in the Greek alphabet. Peter points out that the X (Chi) does NOT stand for K (hard C) ... but a transliterated 'ch'. The tombstone actually reads: ARCHADIA.

Of significance? After all, the letters form PAX + on the tombstone (as in the collection of figures together read as A + PX).

This Chi Rho/labarum is of significance ...... Cherisey is labouring the point!

PAUL is missing all the points 100% totally.

As it is we are not discussing you, we are discussing Cherisey.

De Cherisey should never have been taken seriously in the first place, and trying to find philosophical truths in his surrealist waffles is rather like trying to take seriously Groucho's jokes???

a bit like your waffle too, trying to find something that isnt there

That's because you failed to understand de Cherisey's confession that it was all a huge prank and that he was the Prankster.

Sandy keeps forgetting to add this bit...

How many bottles of wine had De Cherisey consumed when he wrote the bit below?


'The privilege that the Church assumed in taking on the emblem of a temporal prince, is written in a long conflict between imperial Byzantium and pontifical Rome. A parallel was drawn between the chasuble decorated by the chrismon symbol and the red cloak of the Emperor of Byzantium, which carried the emblem until the year 507, when Anastasius put in an appearance and adopted the white of the penitent. The Emperor of the Orient announced that he was going to devote his personal interest to public benefit. He was loudly applauded. This meant that the red robe with the chrismon embroidered in gold passed directly to the Papacy. That same year St Martin of Tours, ambassador of the orient in Gaul, was instructed to return the PAX to Clovis, the Merovingian King in whom the Church was happy to recognise the ‘Patrice’ and the ‘new Constantine’. A legendary illustration relates tot his event, where Saint Martin cuts his cloak in two, with a sword and gives half to a poor man in whom he fails to recognise the Roman emperor.
Arriving in Gaul, the sign of the PAX was replaced with the LABARUM or symbolic banner with its retention of the red and gold colours, whereas the war cry ‘In hoc signo Vinces’ became the Montjoie-Saint Denis'

That's because you failed to understand de Cherisey's confession that it was all a huge prank and that he was the Prankster.



And where did we HEAR that from?


Did you see Cherisey on camera claim it?

Thank you. *DING*

Next question

He wrote it in "Stone and Paper" and the relevant bit was filmed on "History of a Mystery".

the relevant bit was filmed on "History of a Mystery".


Which relevant bit would that be?

The bit where he explained it was all a Prank and that he was the author.
I am sure that you have accidentally-on-purpose overlooked that bit in "Stone and Paper".

How many bottles of wine had De Cherisey consumed when he wrote the bit below?

This just proves Cherisey was far more intelligent than you

Not that of course, we thought otherwise. When it comes to a battle of wits, i'm sure Cherisey could have outshone you

That shows that you take de Cherisey's Pranks seriously.

errrr, i think it means i take Cherisey more seriously than you and what you say

Here's a bit from "Stone and Paper" that Sandy never quotes - here's Philippe de Cherisey laughing at us:

"Ah dear reader, to whom we told everything and yet you heard nothing, what honor, you poor dummy, could we bestow upon you and how could take seriously all these complaints about us stuffing your brains up. Certainly Gérard de Sède and I stuffed your brains up, but isn't that what you want – cheap fantasies that have only one purpose, to enrich the people who create them.

No doubt you think that we poets take a sadistic pleasure in fooling you? But alas we don't. I repeat: hoaxing people involves a laborious life of asceticism of which we are the first penitents until we succeed in creating a beautiful hoax that will fool us well before it fools you."