Last year, I was contacted by a young French guy called Emmanuel Mezino: he was writing a book about the famous “La Buse” cryptogram and treasure, and asked if my publishing house Compelling Press might publish it. From my experience with “The Curse of the Voynich”, I told him that if he structured it in two distinct halves – the front half summarizing facts and historical research (giving sources), and the second half comprising his inferences and speculation – then yes, I would be very interested.
My rationale for this was simple: even if readers happen to disagree with every single aspect of the reasoning (which, let’s face it, is often the default position with cipher mysteries), the book would still stand a good chance of being hugely interesting, entertaining, and useful in its own right – the story of La Buse is fascinating and intriguing, and I have found few properly historical accounts that do justice to any phase of the pirate’s life.
However well-intentioned that was, it was perhaps too tightly-fitting an editorial straitjacket for a young writer to want to wear; and so Emmanuel ended up editing and publishing his book himself, giving it a romantic-looking cover:-
For its title, Mezino used the phrase allegedly called out by Olivier Levasseur (‘La Buse’) en route to the gallows, as he (so the story goes) threw a piece of paper containing his cryptogram to the crowd – “Mon Trésor à qui saura le prendre” (i.e. “My [fabulous] treasure [will go] to he who will take it”). Buying it will cost you rather less than the bejewelled gold cross of Goa: 18,00 euros (plus postage) for a physical copy, or (perhaps more likely if you happen to live outside France) 11,99 euros for the ebook.
Without much doubt, I think the best bit about the book is that it includes some close-up photographs of parts of a new cipher document – what could very possibly be a second copy of La Buse’s cryptogram. It’s not a perfect scoop (a low resolution colour version of this was included on page 8 of Liz Englert’s (2013) treasure-hunting omnishambles book “My Adventures of the Famous La Buse Treasure“), but the quality of the scans Mezino includes is on the whole extremely good.
Having said that, armchair treasure hunters will be perhaps less than fully impressed that Mezino somehow fails to include a close-up of the lines of cipher that only appear in this second version of the cryptogram, settling on giving merely his interpretation of what those extra letters say (which may or may not be correct).
Another less than satisfactory section was Mezino’s imaginative rendition of the “La Buse” legend, which for all its liveliness was plainly derived from a variety of unreliable sources (apparently including his interpretation of the drawings around the second cryptogram). Though this wasn’t as bad as Pauline B. Innis’ (1973) “Gold in the Blue Ridge” (a teeth-grindingly dreadful imaginative historical reconstruction of the Beale Papers story, which I wearily read recently), I’m not planning to return to either any time soon.
And it should be no surprise that, for all Mezino’s claims that he has (by collecting together an assortment of markings on rocks scattered across the northern half of Réunion; interpreting them as a star map written on land; reconciling that with sacred-geometry-style details overlaid on the cryptogram itself; and then back-linking everything to the astronomer Hevelius) logically deduced the only possible answer to the cryptogram… I’m more than just a bit skeptical. In fact, I don’t think there’s even a single detail in his reasoning that I’d ‘fess to agreeing with.
But as you’d expect, Mezino brooks no disagreement with his Grand Plan: and as writer and editor, that’s ultimately his right. You buy his book or you don’t, and you agree with him or you don’t. It’s all fine.
For me, though, his account is all a bit of a missed opportunity: pictures aside, he’s included all the stuff I’d have left out, and omitted all the stuff I’d have put in. There’s no critical appraisal of the second cryptogram as a source document (or even, dare I say it, as a possible modern forgery made to impress treasure hunters), nor any critical appraisal of La Buse’s own history and the quality of the sources.
Nor is there any kind of critical assessment of La Buse’s earlier life in the Caribbean, nor Le Butin’s trustworthiness as the (alleged) source for the first cryptogram, nor a critical assessment of Charles de la Roncière’s (1934) “Le Flibustier Mysterieux”, which first brought the cryptogram to the world’s attention.
Many Cipher Mysteries readers will doubtless link all this with my recent grouchy post about The Voynich Manuscript for Dummies, where I moaned about how people tend to fixate on the mythology of cipher mysteries, and seem to have no time for looking at the basic historical dimensions of the claimed evidence – transparency, reliability, agenda, bla bla bla. Well, yes: and it would be hard to deny that Emmanuel’s book has ended up somewhat hollow in this respect, which is a big shame.
But even so, I do appreciate that writing an evidence-centred cipher mystery book that manages to keep a properly analytical cutting edge but without destroying the underlying mystique is a really tough writing brief – perhaps almost impossible for a writer’s first book. Ultimately, though, perhaps Mezino’s book will – for all its many shortcomings – prove to be a useful first step in the right direction. Hopefully: and yet from where I’m standing, we’ve got a very long way to go on that road just yet…
Nick, for a while now, I’ve been pondering if La Buse’s treasure might be something other than gold — perhaps a lady friend?
😉
You! Grouchy? Not so; just my point of view.
😉
Yeah grouchy that’s the word !!! But it’s just a question, like said bdid1dr, of point of view… and that’s mine!!! Nick, I just hope you will return to read it quickly…to see all that you didnt see… because this books is crypted and plays with word with subtility !!! Any exemple ??? in the book you got all the élément to see that the french poet Jean de La Fontaine was initiated to a secret society…You spoke about historical dimension, this a real scoop that you should appreciate… Well, now i’m waiting your book on the subject, i’m impatient to see your opinion and arguments on this story…and others… Then i stop now to break your critic, because it’s your right to hate this book and i have no time to loose with blind people… But thx for final encouragements. Enjoy life, enjoy “Mon Trésor à qui saura le prendre…” !!!
Emmanuel Mezino
Manu: please understand that I don’t ‘hate’ your book, I just think that it’s only the first words on a difficult subject, rather than the last word.
Nick, I agree with you, the word “hate” is a little bit strong, i only should say you don’t like it. But like you said in your last message, the subject is very difficult, and i think the choice i made to play with words made some supplementaries difficulties for stranger readers. But like i said early, you should read again the book because i’m able to break a lot of points of your critic because you dont understand or didnt see a lots of things. I never said in the book that my answer is the only answer possible to the cypher, never said that the landmarks are in northern west of Réunion island, ect, ect…. You didnt said any word on the philosophical dimension of the book (what is really a treasure ?) and you have to accept that when i read your critic which made said me all that i didnt said in the book, i was a little bit disapointed. All that because, in my point of view, your paper on the book isn’t impartial because it’s uncomplete and give false informations to your readers. That are the reasons of my deception when i read your article… But i share with you one point of view in your critic, it’s when you said ” you agree with him or you don’t”, it’s your right to disagree, for example, when a mathematic professor said 2+2=4, but i think it will be very difficult to proof your professor is wrong… There is no more blind that people who don’t want to see… It’s the same thing with my book, it’s your right to disagree, but it will be very difficult to give serious elements and proof i’m wrong, because this book confirm a lot of informations and facts you can found in other books (Le Clezio, Patrick Mouton, Deschamps, ect, ect….). And about La Roncière’s book, i will give you my critic in private, i’m not here to break sugar on the back of my predecessors ;-). Hope you will read the book again Nick.
Emmanuel Mezino.
Manu: you have convinced yourself that your answer is mathematically correct, but having read your book twice I do not share your opinion.
In general, if you had been much more critical of the basic evidence (of La Ronciere, Le Butin, and the new cryptogram), had taken a broader picture of La Buse’s life and historical context, cited sources more carefully, and had been more restrained and focusd in your reasoning, you would have produced a book that was much better.
Nick, i also conviced a lot of people, historian, armchair treasure hunter and also pro treasure hunter, particulary Erick Surcouf, who have wrote the preface of the book…
I accept all critics when they are argumented…and that is the problem with your paper, you disagrees on the decyphering but didn’t give any element to justificate your point of view… That is called free critic or denigration… Please give me one argument (historic, mathematic or other) to explain your opinion… i’m waiting it impatiently to proof you re on the wrong way… The only point debatable are the extra letters i dont use in the decyphering, but like i said “Je ne vous dirai pas tout”, maybe you have to use this letters to translate the rest of the cypher and found the place where the treasure is buried… Look for and you will found…
Then about La Roncière, you know my point of view about his book if you know how to read between the lines… And you speak about “Le Butin” aka B. Nageon de Lestang… all the official archive about this men were destroyed by some treasure hunters in the early 1900’s… I don’t have a machine to go in the past…and to finish about the new cryptogram, you have to know that the person who have it now is the direct heir of La Roncière’s source… The cryptogram exposed by La Roncière and Charroux is a false, a poor copy of the version I presented in the book, deliberately made to disorientate the others (amateur) treasurehunter… but that’s another story i will narrate you later…
But i also have to give you reason about the source, i dont cited them precisely in each page because i think it harm at reading comfort. That is an editorial choice of my part that i take on fully, but i can understand that it disturb a specialist like you. I will do better next time for you !! ;-). thx.
Emmanuel Mezino
Manu: why you would say these things in a comment to a blog and not argue them directly in your own book is a mystery to me. I understand the idea of aiming for “reading comfort”, but I would never advise omitting half the relevant source material to achieve this end – and I think there’s an awful lot that should have been in there that isn’t.
If you genuinely want me to disprove your theory, I’ll see what I can do.
Nick, i only can agree with you about the source, like i said i will do better next time and i have to recognize that this editorial choice is prejudicial when the readers are demanding about the origin and the pertinence of the information. But i don’t write a book for the specialists, it’s a publication to popularize La Buse’s cypher and story. The aim of the book is making the book accessible to the maximum of people, and not to please to a handful of specialists.
Why i said some information on the blog and not in my book? Because you ask or say and so i answer…I can write hundreds of pages about this story, but by respect for my predecessors, i don’t have to break sugar on their back. The underlying facts of these story are very complex and are involving a lot of people (sometimes famous)…My opinion is that the secrets of this story have to keep secrets, for respect of the peacefulness of the heir of this people. I didnt wrote a book to make a process of the act of these persons, and i think that the baseness of human mind (we can resume it to gold fever) have to stay in the bottom of history… Treasure story always have a part of mysteries, and it’s that which do the attraction…so now, i will not tell more about this points, you know (and your blog’s reader also) the essential…
I’m impatient to read your counter-arguments about the decyphering, but i have to warn you, some specialists (mathematic, history, and some passionate of Levasseur’s story) who read my theory before publishing the book have try to break it and no one succeed…I can’t proof my theory with the extraction of the treasure (administrative and logistic problem), but nobody have succeed to say i’m wrong….that’s the reason why Erick Surcouf accept to wrote the preface of the book. If you do it i will said respect !!! It will be a pleasure for me to discuss about it with you. thx for your answers and hope to read you soon!!!
Good luck !!
Emmanuel Mezino.
Manu: respect for your predecessors shouldn’t prevent you making a fair critique of what was published 70 years ago, or even of what was published last month.
And you seem not to see that a critique is quite different from a criticism – rereading my post just now, I thought I was particularly specific about what the shortcomings of the book were, how they came about, and how they could have been fixed, all of which (I thought) amounted to measured, friendly critique rather than hostile criticism. Oh well.
Somewhat aside from your dialogue herein:
Pirates were not known to be forthcoming about where they stashed the loot (this includes the Ottoman pirates who didn’t necessarily turn over every last piece of “treasure/loot” to the ‘boss’ (Pasha and/or Sultan), even though their heads would roll if they didn’t produce full and truthful accounts.
So, were the two Battles of LePonto basically aimed at the “Treasures” that the Crusader Knights hoarded (on Cyprus)?
Just a hunch.
ps:The French King Phillip (the Fair) imprisoned them as soon as they brought the money to him. They were brutally tortured for months and then burned at the stake on a small island in the (Loire?) river.
I think I have deciphered the part 2 of La Buse’s /le Butins pirates Cipher (part 2)
I don’t know if it any help to anyone or what to do with with the decipher.
Hi Darrell, do you mean the extra few lines on the end of the La Buse pigpen cipher that sound like the treasure clue in The Gold Bug?