The Courtade document

 

Turmoil

1659. Mazarin negotiated the “Treaty of the Pyrenees”. The French monarchy finally fulfilled a dream of Charlemagne: to extend the French border to the Pyrenees. The French province of the Roussillon is now controlled by Louis XIV. The counties Roussillon-Vallespir and Conflent-Capcir are given to the king of France, while the majority of the Catalan territories are returned to Spain. The royal administrative services of France make a census of the properties and goods, giving the conclusion of their census to the judicial authorities, as well as the general administration and the treasury of the French Crown.
Several royal notaries are despatched and/or tasked with the inventory of the new goods, a process that had been occurring for several years prior to the completion of the treaty – as is to be expected. Some of this material is relatively up to date, as ownership of property was a necessity for all ages and all countries.
The royal notary ordered to work on the territories of the Ràzes and the old Languedoc (including Durban, Feuillat, Treilles, Gléon and Caves) works on the material created by another royal notary: Bernard Courtade. He already had all the required material available for many places now subject to the census. Amongst these are listed the properties of the village of Perillos itself, but not its Pyrenean annexes of their distant heirs.

A non-enigmatic document

The “Courtade document” lists all the ground directly attached to this stronghold and the owners of the rights to which the belongings are registered. The work of Courtade did not concern judicial rights, nor tax or administrative affairs. It is furthermore evident that the essential documents concerning property or family acts were of no concern to this census, but were solely focused on what we today would call “cadastral acts”.
Nowadays, it is very difficult to get copies of original peerage books, heraldic and family documents of the families that made their history in the old country of the Catalan Roussillon. These originals did not so much get lost, as they were put in safety in Spanish Catalonia before the annexation to France. Many still remain there and can be consulted. The bits of family archives of the old Catalan sectors of Opoul, Perillos, Vingrau and Rivesaltes (to quote only those) are in the hands of their descendants living in the area of Sabadell (province of Barcelona)…

detailing an enigma

Of major interest to us is one reference in the Courtade register. On one of its pages, it mentions in a small paragraph, an area that contains a piece of land which, administratively, is untouchable, on which it is forbidden to cut or collect wood, stones or remove anything else. Even the lords of Perillos are subject to this law. Furthermore, the land cannot be sold. It is a closed enclave, without access, within the grounds of the lords of Perillos. They have to guard it, but are not allowed to manage it. It does not belong to them and in no manner are they to intervene or make use of it.
The notes of Courtade have a laconic note regarding this piece of land, when he mentions that an ancient, important tomb is located there, which cannot be disturbed.

Such an administrative imposition might astonish. However, a similar situation existed in Lyon (Quay Pierre Scize), where a piece of land belonged to no single individual, could not be bought or sold, whereas the city had the task to maintain it.
It is intriguing that once the lands were joined to the French throne, the French authorities decided to uphold this law. The place was left untouched under the same conditions as those instilled upon it by the Catalan throne.
However, at the time of the French Revolution, the situation changed radically. The existing grounds were scattered, sold and stripped. But one person seems to have maintained his interest. It was this piece of land – the “tombs” – which is included in the sector depicted in the so-called Saunière’s model.

Controversy

The Courtade is one of several documents that underline that there is a reality to the model: that Saunière was not alone in thinking there was something on this site. And, as such, it is a document that within the circles of Rennes-le-Château is controversial, for, as many religiously want the Rennes mystery to stay in Rennes, such evidence needs to be ridiculed, if it cannot be disregarded.
This situation is – indeed – not helped by the fact that the Société Perillos has regulated access to the contents of the Courtade material. But, we note, it is not the only such restriction and other finds, to do with the history of Perillos (and other villages) receive the same treatment. Our approach is not at all different from one that you will find anywhere else, including museums and other private collections. It seems, however, that the privileges and customs available to others, is not applicable to the Société Perillos.

An incident

On February 5, 2009, one “Paul” wrote on the French forum of the Perillos site, asking where one could find the famous “Courtade register”. From this rather bland question, the tone then quickly mounted, becoming almost menacing. Specifically, laws seem to be invented to support Paul’s rather ludicrous claims. On February 18, Paul explains his intentions, stating that an archive from a notary should not remain in “our” hands, but instead placed in the archives of the departments. To illustrate the beauty of his claim, he quotes an article of the law of March 17, 1803, which reads: “the notaries are public functionaries, established to receive all the acts and contracts to which the parties need or want to give an authentic character, attached to acts of public authority.” He then adds that this law is still in place, etc.
The problem is, of course, that this is a law from after the French Revolution and the Courtade documents predate this date. But this somewhat important detail is totally lost on Paul – no doubt because it totally destroys his “legal argument”.
We also need to clarify something about the information of the Courtade itself, from a legal perspective. Landownership and like had to be re-evaluated every century, at least. After all, ownerships etc. change hands and therefore, after a period of a century, the Courtade document had little to no legal validity.

Repeat… twice

On February 19, Paul reiterates his demands, as if by arguing something twice in two days, it somehow carries greater weight. But nowhere does Paul reveal any interest in other works of Courtade, or other material in our possession which should perhaps be in a museum… he is only interested in the Courtade and it is therefore clear he is totally insincere in his demands.
Then, on February 27, after weeks of getting nowhere, he argues that he has a copy of the Courtade, and wants to verify that his copy is conform to the original. But then he asks in which language the document is written! If he has a copy, surely he would know? Or is he perhaps so stupid he cannot read it?
Then, by March 5, he claims the Société Perillos has if not illegal, than at least contrary to what should have happened, done everything to make sure the document stays outside of the archives of the department. In short, it seems as if we are thieves. The following day, he claims to have an entire copy of the document, and then signs off as “Paul-Samuel Calgis”.

A pseudonym

When we engaged Paul in discussion, we continuously noted that he was invited, if he so desired, to come and consult the Courtade himself. No problem. Hundreds of people have seen this register, some have read sections of it, and those know that the important information revealing the location of the tombs, etc., is rarely if ever in the volume where it comes from… human temptation… is all too well known to us. But then Paul was clearly not interested – he claimed throughout – into treasure and like. Just the document and that it should be in a departmental archive. Right…

On March 5, Paul signed as “Paul Samuel C.” and the following day, as “Paul-Samuel Calgis”. He adds (en toutes lettres), which is a rather strange reference. He is drawing attention to his name, and after a while, it appears to use to run the name through a cipher, to see what other words it comes up with. We then realise it is a pseudonym of Pascal Guillaumes, a one-time friend, now turned adversary, for reasons only Pascal is able to explain, though we do know that the reasons he promotes on his website are far from the truth. We can only wonder why this upstanding member of society, for example the founder of the Chronodrome experience in Opoul, has fallen so low as to play these little games by using a pseudonym, or to waste our and his time – and that of forum readers – by going through the charades he did. Let us also note that Pascal has seen the Courtade on numerous occasions, so his initial demand, as “Paul”, to see it, is an example of his game play, which is to bring the Société Perillos into disrespect. Perhaps he feels we steal the thunder of the Chronodrome experience and hopes that if we are discredited, all the attention will go to himself? It is clear that at some point, Pascal’s ego has been damaged… why, we don’t know, but we do know that it is the second time that Pascal has now had a go at the credibility of our organisation. Just like the first time, it was with highly imaginative charges and false allegations, which we could quickly address by showing the documents upon which his claims were based. Six months later, it is clear that the attacks are very much Tourette-like.

Disinformation

Paul’s claims were specifically obnoxious as we have the archives of Courtade for more than a decade and we have never forbidden departmental archives, whether on regional or national level, to come and look or consult them. In fact, on occasion, some have asked us such access, and never has this been refused. And at not a single occasion did they comment negatively on the fact that this archive was in our possession. Having contacted them once again following the claims made by “Paul”, they said that they would be willing to testify in our favour should there be any need. Let us note that there are thousands if not millions of material in private possessions, from paintings to ancient artefacts, which some might feel “need” to be in museums, but are not. And the situation with the Courtade is no different. But in all these instances, there are no “laws”, which is the argument that Paul used to make his point.

“The” Courtade

One volume is dated 1632 and the other 1624, showing the amount of work that went into compiling landownership, but Courtade was doing this over a large region, and in essence had to have everyone sign as to what one did and did not own, etc. Though everyone somewhat familiar with the work of a notary would know how these people operate and operated, “Paul” showed either his ignorance, or his bad nature, by claiming he had “everything”, though it soon became clear that he had only one thing: the 1632 volume.
When he was confronted with this fact, he had a go at the Société Perillos, stating he knew very well that there was a 1624 volume, but because on our website, we normally use the 1632 edition as illustration, he “thought” this was the more important edition. It’s like telling a mother with two children that because she showed a photograph on Facebook with one daughter, that she must love that daughter more? If he had consulted our paper publications, he will know that we normally use the 1624 edition to illustrate the paper publications.
Meanwhile, some others who had jumped on the Guillaumes bandwagon, argued that they had always been told by our organisation there was only one Courtade… despite the fact that both have been on occasion on display at conferences, and, specifically, that photographs of the covers have been placed on our website and publications. Armchair researchers… beware of them!

André Douzet

Note: all photographs in this article are copyrighted. No unauthorised reproduction allowed.