I’ve previously blogged a number of times about Bernardin Nagéon de l’Estang: the short version is that I have yet to see a single piece of external evidence that he genuinely existed. A man with the right name did exist in the right place, but some 25 years too early for the dates: and so the reasonable – but as yet entirely unproven – presumption is that we should be looking for an unrecorded son of this man sharing his father’s name. The man certainly had several sons, not all of which are recorded… but that’s as far as we have been able to get.
The reason anybody cares about him is that he wrote (in French, translated here) that “…at our last battle with a large British frigate on the shores of Hindustan, the captain was wounded and on his deathbed confided to me his secrets and his papers to retrieve considerable treasure buried in the Indian Ocean; and, having first made sure that I was a Freemason, asked me to use it to arm privateers against the English.” Secrets and papers which treasure hunters have been speculating wildly about ever since.
In a post from April 2015 [which I managed to miss until very recently],
Emmanuel Mezino blogged about the evidence he had managed to dig up about Nagéon de l’Estang. From internal evidence, Manu reasons that the event where Nagéon de l’Estang claimed to have gained possession of “secrets” and “papers” from a dying French Freemason sea captain must surely have happened prior to 1789 [though personally I’m not so sure his logic holds]; and so Manu then winds the historical clock back to 1781-1783 when, in a series of five battles between Admiral Hughes’s squadron and Admiral le Bailli de Suffren’s squadron off the coast of Cuddalore, three French sea-captains died. Manu lists these as:
* The Chevalier Eleonore Perier de Salvert (whose life and Freemasonry connections are ably described here), commander of Le Flamand [50 guns];
* Captain Dupas de la Mancelière, Captain of the Ajax [64 guns];
* Capitain Dien, Commander of the fire-ship [probably 0 guns] launched under the orders of Capitain De Langle of Le Sévère [64 guns].
Manu thinks it probable that it was the Chevalier de Salvert whom Bernardin Nagéon de l’Estang was alluding to: and opening up H.C.M. Austen’s trusty “Sea Fights and Corsairs of the Indian Ocean” (which specifically covers this series of sea-battles in Chapter V), we find a report (p.188) of de Salvert’s death noted by William Hickey, who had met de Salvert several times on board his ship in January of that year:
“I was greatly concerned to to hear that in this action [the fifth and final sea battle] my worthy and respected friend the Chevalier de Salvert lost his life, being cut in two by a cannon-ball on the quarter-deck of the Flamand, while gallantly fighting his ship and encouraging her crew to use their utmost exertions to ensure success. I truly grieved at his death, notwithstanding he died fighting against my country, but that was no fault of his, and I firmly believe a better man never lived, such are the dire and lamentable consequences of war, the best men often being the most unfortunate.”
[Taken from “Memoirs of William Hickey”, published by Messrs. Hurst and Blackett, Ltd, but I’d be more interested in reading this in context in the original Vol III (or possibly Vol II?) than the abridged later version “The Prodigal Rake”.]
All the same, there must surely be many more accounts of this highly-respected Chevalier’s death in the archives yet to be found…
Manu goes on in a second post to recount how he found references to a certain Hélène Nagéon de Lestang, who married the creole poet Antoine Bertin at her stepfather’s property in Sainte-Domingue, and links this to the (nearby) 1770 birthplace of (the very real) Jean Marius Justin Nagéon de Lestang.
So that’s as far as Manu got with normal archival research, i.e. not really anywhere substantial. Close, but no cigar.
But then he pulls a gigantic rabbit from his hat, the testimony of Ali Loumi Ben Kace, as given in treasure hunter Patrice Hoffschir’s (2002) Bourbon l’̂île aux tresors:
“One day, in a sea port in Sicily, I drank too much: and woke up at sea on a pirate ship owned by Bernard Nagéon. I spent more than two years on this ship. […] In the Indian Ocean, we fought with two English corvettes, but we had to flee by night along the coast of Bourbon Island, with a broken main mast and sails, and with four holes torn in the hull. We were then stranded on a reef; and after throwing all the ballast overboard, the boat escaped the reef and we landed on the island. But the hull was holed on a rock and we were all forced to land there. Bernard Nagéon became almost crazy. Despite the waves, he ordered everyone to save what was possible. We managed to get a big chest and a barrel of gold ashore with the captain. […] I saw Bernard himself making marks in the lava rock: a heart and a “B9″ shape – everything is hidden there because both holes are now resealed. We left three weeks later on the galley of François Boivin of Saint-Malo, Bernard leaving everything concealed lest Boivin steals it all. […]. ”
Which, to my ears, sounds utterly peachy and completely made up. But… might it be true? There’s a little more on Hoffschir here, who goes treasure hunting with “une grande dose de spiritualité”. Hmmm…
“big mat” is perhaps the main mast, the French for a mast being mât.
Interestingly, an online nautical English-French dictionary omits “main mast” but here it is anyway
http://icdept.cgaux.org/pdf_files/English-French-Glossary-Nautical-Terms.pdf
Diane: I fixed up the translation (I meant to do that later today, but why not now, eh?) so it reads far more like the Boy’s Own Pirate Adventure tale it comes across as in the French original. But who knows, maybe it is true, who can tell? 😉
If de Salvert was cut in two by a cannonball wouldnt death be more or less instantaneous? I dont imagine there would be much opportunity for deathbed verifications of masonic allegience and treasure explanations in these circumstances
Patagon: the “cut in two” part may be exaggeration on someone’s part, which is why I’d like to see other accounts from the archives. But what is particularly nice about the de Salvert hypothesis is that it would neatly explain what the writer meant by “our final battle” – the 1783 battle was the last of a series of five major ship-of-the-line sea battles carried out by the French Admiral’s squadron.
hi Nick !
One day you will believe me 😉 !
Look this… and you will understand that Nageon de Lestang généalogy is uncomplète…
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9602576r/f292.item.r=nageon%20tresor.zoom
Can you explain me, how a widow Nageon de Lestang appears in 1783 in Mauritius ? if we refer to the genealogy on the web, this woman dont exist… conclusion : the genealgy on the web is uncomplete, because this book threat about an official judgment … Maybe Helene appears from here, from this hiden part of Nageon de Lestang genealogy… 🙂
That’s the first evidence : the web isnt the full truth…
Have a good day 😉 !
hi Nick !
One day you will believe me 😉 (i hope…but i cant do nothing for it !!
!
Look this… and you will understand that Nageon de Lestang généalogy is uncomplète…
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9602576r/f292.item.r=nageon%20tresor.zoom
Can you explain me, how a widow Nageon de Lestang appears in 1783 in Mauritius ? if we refer to the genealogy on the web, this woman dont exist… conclusion : the genealgy on the web is uncomplete, because this book threat about an official judgment … Maybe Helene appears from here, from this hiden part of Nageon de Lestang genealogy… 🙂
That’s the first evidence : the web isnt the full truth…
Have a good day 😉 !
and about the logical deduction about the date when Nageon got the papers.
He said in his testament, after telling how he got the paper near hindoustan “j’ai attendu que la France soit calme pour y retourner”… Translated : ” I expected that France is calm to return”… that’s mean he got the paper before the france was not calm, and the period of trouble is the revolution.
Logically, Nagéon got the papers before 1789 (the battle of 1783 is the only i found which is concording with all the indication of the testament…), wait the France was more calm and return in Indian Ocean around 1792…
have you made any research about Charroux’s declarations…which said in substance that Nagéon “se rangea finalement du coté des républicains….”
😉
Manu: he wrote his testament in three phases, and that last (third) phase was written after the fall of Tamatave, (i.e. after 3rd December 1810).
“In my adventurous life before embarking on the Apollon” – the Apollo was built in 1796, sailed out of Boston, was then captured at Brest, was famously captained by Jean Francois Hodoul in 1797, but was then captured by HMS Leopard in 1798. But there is no Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang in its final crew list.
“But I abhor this wandering life, so I decided to enlist permanently and wait for France to calm down before finding these treasures and return back there.” This was written no earlier than 1810. It therefore seems that his “adventurous life before embarking on the Apollon” was as a corsair rather than as an enlisted sailor.
All I’m trying to say is that I think you may well be correct that Bernardin is referring to the final sea battle between Admirals Hughes and Suffren, but that I don’t think the evidence and reasoning you’re using to support that claim works.
Manu: as far as the genealogy goes, I thought it had also been claimed that Rose Savy was descended from Bernardin’s family? Or was that just a lie?
As far as the 1783 veuve Nageon de Letang goes, what exactly does that prove?
Well… Butin died aroud 1800 or 1801 not in 1811 after the shall of tamatave… The testament are dated, and the date are formal : the last letter was writen in 1800 that’s clear and no suffering of any contestation… Where did you see 1811 in testament ???? 1811 is the Nereide and Roquebert expedition… Nageon was dead and dry since a long time… Please read again the documents : testament is dated in 1795 (20 Floréal year III ), the first letter is writed around year VIII (1799-1800), and the second letter is around year IX (1800-1801)…
Well about the widow Nageon de Lestang in 1783, that proves that the genealogy on the web is uncomplete… and that’s a very good point : why ??? Because if there is a widow Nageon de Lestang in 1783, you logically have to find his husband before…. What’s the matter…if you look like H.Maurel genealogy, the only chidren Nageon living at this time is André Ambroise… André Ambroise died in 1799…he cannot let a widow in 1783… This fact proves thats henri Maurel genalogy tree is missing at least one branch… and that give another orientation for the research…
About Savy, they are indirect heir of Butin, by André Ambroise…. They have got some document from a notary called Basset who was purchased by the english… The Savy’s story telled by Charroux is illogic…some press article proof that the search of the treasure begun before 1923 and the “official” date give by Charroux…. In 1916 a French “tourist” found a Nageon’s treasure in Pemba…he came back in France with a chest full of coins, for a value of millions of Franc… Always believing in Savy’s story ? Well you can believe in Santa Claus, he will come around the 25th of december… The Savy story is for me clearly a lie… Who’s the first author speaking os Savy : Robert Charroux…and when you know who was R. Charroux’s source…you know that this story was invented to protect the identity of his source…
Well about the testament…i’m french…and read it good…i know my language subtilities…and my country history. The evidence is that the period mentionned in Nageon’s testament like “I want the France was calm” can only be the révolution….because before 1800 that’s the only period of trouble…this point is confirmed by Charroux text, which said that Nageon was royalist but finally join the republican…that’s so clear and no suffering contestation… Nageon play a role in french revolution… I found a reference to a Nageon during this period, mentionned with Marat, Condorcet and others…thats clear, Marat, Condorcet is clearly during the french revolution…And the testament of Nageon are clear, he got the paper before this period (if you well learning french) You can believe the opposite…that’s your right….but it make me laugh 🙂
Have a good day.
Manu: the letters are clearly in three parts, with the second part addressed to “Justin” and the third to “dear Etienne”. The second part was dated 10th May 1800, sure, but the third part begins with “Beloved brother, I’ve been sick since the fall of Tamatave”. Tamatave fell in 1811. What are you seeing that I’m not?
Read Paul Fleuriau Chateau “aventure en mer, trésors pirates et corsaire”… He published the letters of Nageon, in a version which got some variation. The third letter is dated by Paul Fleuriau Chateau in 1801 and not 1811…
Believe what you want… for my part, i believe only what i seen…
😉
Manu: hold on a minute, are you honestly telling me that there are multiple versions of the Nageon letters and you just happen to prefer Fleuriau-Chateau’s version?
The version I’ve been relying on is here (in French) and here (in my translation) and came from Charroux.
So are you saying that Charroux lied about these letters, inserting the reference to the Fall of Tamatave for his own reasons? This would seem an odd thing to do if treasure hunters had been relying on those letters since before 1926, surely someone would have spotted the difference?
I just said that there is other expedition from Mauritius or Reunion to madagascar during the period 1796-1801… Fleuriau Chateau also mentionned “prise de tamatave” in this letters… There both simililar that other version, only two or three phrases changed…
You just see “prise de Tamatave” and relied it to Roquebert’s expedtion ? Why occulting the othersexpedition and fight before ?
I just said that Butin, who died around 1800 cant write a letter in 1811… if its the case, called the Vatican, its a miracle ! A dead man who write a letter ten year after his death…it’s formidable…
And just a last argument to achieve your theory… Nageon said he’s ill since the “fall” of Tamatave… The first Consul gave him his “goodwill” (probably a fonction, a high-job…) after an heroic act, but his disease prevent him to realise it. The consulat is a politic regim, during the period 1795-1799. You can forgot 1811. 😉
Manu: sure, he claimed that the first Consul showed “bienveillance” towards him, but all we can tell beyond that is that this had happened in the past, and we don’t know how far in the past, and we don’t know what form that “bienveillance” took, and we don’t know whether or not that was connected with the illness of which Bernardin complains, etc – so once again, you haven’t yet proven anything definitive.
You really don’t seem to grasp that sensible history simply isn’t about constructing plausible-sounding narratives, but rather is about using careful, close reading to generate testable hypotheses which suggest where to look for more definitive evidence.
Here, for example, I presume that we don’t yet know who that First Consul was. So why not draw up a short list of possible candidates and see what archival evidence is available that digs deep into their lives? Something there might show us what Bernardin’s “heroic deed” was.
As it is, every time something comes up that goes against the history you espouse, you say Charroux / de la Ronciere / whoever is clearly lying, or Poe must have seen the cryptogram, or there are letters that describe this (but nobody has seen), or there are multiple versions of the same evidence, or whatever.
But finding clever ways of reconciling stuff is a colossal waste of effort, compared with actually finding definitively causal evidence. Right now, your theories and suppositions about both Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang and La Buse are based on a whole load of stuff that unreliable people have told you in confidence or that you have read from hugely unreliable sources.
Look, I (of all people) really do understand that doing history properly is a hard, hard thing: but what makes you look foolish in the eyes of just about everyone here (and yes, people email me to say this) is that you continue to claim certainty when you have no genuinely usable evidence whatsoever, just stories – and nothing more substantial than The Klondyke Company ever had.
Nick:
Year 8 of the Republic is, I think, equivalent to AD 1799-1800.
The Premier Consul from 1799-1804 was a bloke called Napoleon Bonaparte, who later came second at Waterloo.
SirHubert: ah, yes, thanks. Sorry, my memory was playing tricks on me – I misremembered that there had been a First Consul before Napoleon, when in fact – like all the best jobs – it was one set up specifically for him, and one that he promoted himself out of (to Emperor of the First French Empire) and discarded forever.
So actually, Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang can only therefore be referring to some kind of Napoleonic munificence bestowed upon him, and presumably only in the 1799-1804 time-frame. Shame there are so many books written about Napoleon, narrowing this alleged event down could suck years from an historian’s life. =:-o
Jean Francois HODOUL — John Francis O’Doul ???
Nick, be kind — bear with Manu a little longer. If this discussion began with a focus on Bernardin Nageon de l’Estang, and Sir Hubert has tried to ‘Humorously’ follow up on your discussions with Manu, can’t y’all find new info by bypassing the Napoleanic swerve?
Tell us a little more about Jean Francois ‘Hodoul’; The French ‘H” is silent. So, it could more likely be a reference to a John Francis O’Doul ? In that case, could it be that his mother was French and his father Irish or Scots-Irish?
bdid1dr (whose parents were Scots-Irish and French with an earlier ancestor of Swiss origins.
Ybel … My grandfather referred to his wife as “Rosie-Belle’. Or that is what their son (my father) understood them to be saying. Some hundred years later, I found birth records, baptismal documents, which identified Mrs. Miller’s maiden name of “Ybele” (single L).
So: Scots-Irish, German-French, and maybe Swiss/Lorraine.
bd
Alsace-Lorraine?
Furthermore: I wonder if there is any relation to D’Lestang and the composer of the “1812 Overture”. (?)
:-^
Intéressant le témoignage Ali Ben Kace , il ne dit pas , il a ecrit B9 , mais je l ai vu faire une forme B9 , ce qui nous rapproche du témoignage de Nageon de L estang par une combinaison étrange les signes cryptographique forme mon nom BN .
Je vois deux combinaisons possible avec les lettres crypto , mais celle qui repésente un T horizontale avec la tête a droite me semble la plus judicieuse ( de la même maniére que celle qui represente le SUD sur le crypto dit de la Buse .)
Hi Everyone
Who has a copy of where the location of that place meaning i kno the river the exact location please provide me informations if i find something i give you a share ,i been honest help me out i live there write to me [email protected] on the subject tresure de BUTIN
i looking forward to hear from you soon<<<
Best regards
Kovalen
Hello,
I was surprised to discover this article which mentions my ancestor, Eleonor Jacques de Perier de Salvert. He was indeed killed by an English cannonball during the battle of Negapatam in 1783. I can provide you with the sources supporting this fact, as I am writing his biography.
Sincerely
Bonjour
J’ai découvert avec surprise cet article qui mentionne un membre de ma famille, Eléonor Jacques de Perier de Salvert. Il a effectivement emporté par un boulet de canon. Je peux vous fournir des sources appuyant ce fait car je rédige sa biographie.
Cordialement