The Henry Lincoln Chronicles: The Baigent/Brown Lawsuit

There was a lot of speculation about why Henry Lincoln was not named in the lawsuit against Dan Brown and his DiVinci Code novel.  When Lincoln was asked, he bowed out gracefully and did not provide much detail regarding the suit.  The passing of Henry Lincoln this year allowed me to re-examine some of his works and books and the great work he did regarding the Templars, Cathars, et al.  

Now, back to the lawsuit.  While reopening our admiration for Lincoln we discovered old entries in his blog.   Here, Lincoln explains the lawsuit.  In his own words, you’ll see his honor and class remains consistent in his writings. The following is an excerpt from Henry Lincoln’s Blog post, circa 2009/10. Lincoln explains his decision NOT to join the Baigent lawsuit against Dan Brown.

A BROKEN PROMISE

I said, as I began to recount this sorry tale, that I find it difficult to deal with. Nor do I wish to dwell on such matters. However, now begun and because I have promised honest replies to the questions put to me on this website, I feel constrained to get rid of the unpleasantness in order to return to more entertaining and instructive matters. To do so, I must deal with one other allied matter. But not now. Enough, I think, is enough for the time being. Part Two of this outrageous saga will follow at a later date.

Here is that “Part Two”, which I begin with a preface:

Yes – I find it difficult to deal with. I have tried on several occasions to write a cool and objective account of this matter, but each time I have had to abandon the attempt. Those of you who have met me, know that I try not to take myself too seriously. But this is not a subject for levity, dealing as it does with truth, honesty, and – if this is not too old-fashioned a word to use in our cynical modern age – honour.

It can, I suppose, be readily understood that, at the height of the Da Vinci Code frenzy, almost any book with the word Jesus in the title, and bearing as author any of the names Baigent, Leigh or Lincoln would be guaranteed a fairly good sale.

Such a book did, indeed, appear in 2006: The Jesus Papers by Michael Baigent.

I must here make a short but important digression: 

When, in my Key to the Sacred Pattern (1997), I had occasion to refer to an important communication from Gérard de Sède, I thought it well to reproduce the document. I did this so that there would be no doubt nor question in the reader’s mind that I might have edited the text in some way, to suit my purposes.

Now …

Baigent’s book is built around and is totally dependent upon a letter from an Anglican clergyman. But this vital document is not shown to the reader. Moreover, Baigent begins his second chapter with these words:

Throughout my career, I’ve enjoyed correspondence with other historians and researchers into the truth behind accepted history, but some letters demand more attention than others. This letter certainly did.

He then goes on to quote from it and say:

“Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, and I simply didn’t know what to do with this note.”

It seems to me that this can give no other impression than that the letter was part of his own correspondence, even possibly stemming from his own research.

I here reproduce that letter:

Should you find the handwriting difficult to decipher, I copy the text below:

Henry Lincoln                                                                      29th March 1972 Esq [Not for publication]

As can clearly be seen…

…the missive is not the property of Baigent – nor did he have any right to reproduce it. The letter is addressed to me in response to my first BBC film and the date shows that I received it in 1972, a number of years before Baigent was even aware of the existence of Rennes-le-Château. One might think that, even as a minor courtesy, it would have been appropriate for him to have informed me – (as well as his publisher) – that he was intending to use it. In fact, it is usual for a book contract to include a clause in which the writer affirms that he owns all necessary rights.

Of more concern to me in this case – Baigent well knew that I had given the clergyman my word that I would preserve his anonymity – and the letter is clearly headed “Not for publication”. I also gave my word that we would not quote the letter directly, but only summarise its message. This promise was adhered to in The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail (see p 16), which explains why the letter was not reproduced in that book.

I publish it here, now, because the damage has been done. Baigent has caused my word to be broken. This I consider to be a disgraceful and uncaring insult, both to me and to the reverend gentleman. The fact that he is now dead has no relevance. I had given my word – and Baigent knew it. How, then, did the letter come into Baigent’s possession?

Not surprisingly, I gave him full access to my archive when he joined Richard Leigh and myself in our research. He was able to copy any document he chose. He now seems to consider that this gives him unfettered ownership of all the Rennes-le-Château material.

Why did I not pursue the matter? And why have I remained silent for so long? I can only repeat that I find Baigent’s behaviour despicable and dreadfully unfeeling. I detest the manner in which money seems to be able to infect relationships. I hope now to be able to let this matter rest and that, as it deserves, it will slip into the Slough of Oblivion.

I have dealt with this unpleasant business because I have many times been asked to “set the record straight”. Am I being partisan in my statements? Perhaps …

But then, as Mr. Justice Peter Smith – (quoting the Defence in the Dan Brown plagiarism case) – recorded in his Judgement (para 232):

They say that they do not know whether…[Baigent]…was deliberately trying to mislead the court or was simply deluded and that he is either extremely dishonest or a complete fool.

It should be noted. Lincoln was his best critic.  His diligence to find the ‘truth’ around the Rennes-le-Château mystery is unparalleled. He realized he was on the right track with his ‘discoveries’ but continually researched every aspect of the mystery. He was resilient to find the larger picture of what happened at Sauniere’s church and (more importantly) around the surrounding countryside.  He was able to slightly adjust his hypothesis as he discovered new facts in his research. Although some of the details changed, the result remained consistent.  It pertained to the geometry, Templar and Cathar influence in the region, and how a vast treasure at Rennes-le-Château was only a cover story.  As Above, So Below, was a much more important discovery.