Forgotten secrets of the church of Rennes-le-Château Part 1: The baluster which allegedly made Saunière a wealthy man

 

Cleaning in progress…

Any visitor to the church of Rennes-le-Château will become lost in the plethora of decorations that have contributed to the fame of this building. Any knowledgeable researcher will lose even faster any sight of where to look, for almost every element inside the church has been the subject of one or more theories. Everything the visitor sees in this church, is the work of Saunière. Nothing of what we see, is what he saw when he arrived – except, of course, the general layout of the building. But neither the floor, the stained glass windows, the colours or even the statues predate Saunière.
Most theories focus on some curious detail on a station of the cross, a clue hidden in a statue or in the position of the statues in the church, etc. Though that might be the case, such theories hinge on the unproven hypothesis that Saunière was willing to leave such clues behind; that he took the risk to play with visible clues that would reveal the true source of his income – believed by many to be a treasure. But what it, by default, is unable to do, is provide the clues that would have directed Saunière on his own treasure hunt; any clues left behind by his predecessors about any treasure were removed by Saunière. And that in itself would suggest Saunière was very wary of leaving clues – if, of course, there was a treasure.

The work begins

Let us concentrate on some of the first works carried out by Saunière in the church: the replacement of the main altar, followed shortly afterwards by the replacement of the pulpit. According to Gérard de Sède, this work was carried out in 1886, though other authors have suggested July 1887 as the correct timeframe. The work on the main altar will become the subject of a later chapter, but let us suffice to note that many of the leading authors on this topic have led themselves astray by focusing too heavily on a detail.
Let us retrace what would have happened: the workforce would have had to dismantle the stones of the old altar and its substructure, which apparently dated to the Visigothic period. It is now, according to Gérard de Sède, that something out of the ordinary happened: “However, it is now that these upheavals of the year 1886 give way to a singular discovery: that of old parchments hidden in a hollow pillar. This is a well-established fact, as it rests on the account of eyewitnesses, who took part in the demolition work in the church. These testimonies however diverge on one point. According to some, the documents were found by Saunière himself in the “capsa” of the Visigothic pillar, locked up in a wooden roller, covered with dry ferns. According to others, they were hidden in a wooden baluster, locked up in a kind of bottle, where they were discovered by the bell-ringer Captier, who at once gave them to the priest. This divergence, which is quite excusable three quarters of a century after the event, may seem negligible: old age sets in, certain witnesses become confused about the lucky find of some relics by the bell-ringer and that of parchments, and the stone pillar with the wooden baluster, especially if these two discoveries occurred almost simultaneously, within a few days of each other.
It could however have been of great interest to be able to determine the exact nature where the parchments were, which, since then, as we will see later on, have been widely written about.” (Rennes-le-Château. Le dossier, les impostures, les phantasmes, les hypothèses. Robert Laffont 1988).
Gérard de Sède thus concisely summarised the situation at the moment when the world of Saunière seemed to turn a most important corner. The only thing we need to add to what de Sède wrote is that the discoveries did not occur “a few days apart”, but that the demolition of the altar occurred in July 1887, and not in 1886, and that the discovery in the baluster must have occurred at the same time when the pulpit was changed, which occurred in September 1891. We note that 1891 was the period when a series of works were done to the outside of the building, which included the installation of the Calvary, the grotto and that which would become known as the “reposoir” or summer house, used by Saunière as his library and office, constructed on top of a cistern. Our attention, however, remains focused on what de Sède has termed the “baluster”, whose discovery occurred while work was in progress both inside and outside the church.

“and it is thanks to me that the priest became rich”

Indeed, several years – four or five, depending on which author – after the replacement of the main altar, Saunière decided that he would replace the pulpit. We can assume that the latter would be made from wood. At the time, only the more luxurious churches had stone pulpits. Furthermore, as the baluster was in wood, it would be logical to conclude that the pulpit would be in wood.
We note that both the Visigothic pillar of the main altar and the wooden baluster still exist, the former on display in the museum of the presbytery, the other in the private ownership of Antoine Captier. It was he who explained to us how his ancestor and namesake made the fortunate discovery.
The workmen, whose task it was to demolish the pulpit, deposited it. Executing this task, they rocked the massive piece of wood that supported the unit from where the priest held his sermon. We note that this structure was neither dangerous nor ruinous, for it was from this structure that Saunière had previously preached to his parishioners to vote against the State… a decision which had cost him a suspension. The demolition was hard and the baluster was thrown on the ground without any care for the object. As he had just sounded the angelus, the verger (Antoine Captier), when leaving the bell-tower, caught the sight of an unusual reflection. Near the exit of the old belfry lay the old and heavy piece of wood. A break in the latter seemed to make something shine inside its upper part. He saw that from the impact of the fall, a kind of slide was dislocated and he assumed that there was a hiding place somewhere within the mass of the wood. It is from within that hiding place that an object inside was glaring in the light. Intrigued, he approached and found, in the space opened by a long wooden latch, a glass bulb containing a small parchment, which he at once gave to Saunière. The man, to end the story that he was telling to his grandson, added: “and it is thanks to me that the priest became rich!”

The return of the prodigious baluster

The nature of these parchments have since become hotly contested, though we should add that it appears that within the confines of this church, they were located in only one of three hiding places: one, the Visigothic pillar; two, the baluster. The third location was revealed when Saunière had a flagstone removed – the so-called “dale des chevaliers”), in front of the main altar. The third deposit was said to be in the shape of a small nest egg, money, held within a terracotta pot, whereas the first two finds were written documents, parchments… and a hypothetical relic.
As mentioned, hardly anything from the old church remains. But what remains, is linked with the story of these treasures: the baluster has survived, the Visigothic pillar, as well as the flagstone… A fourth element that may have survived Saunière’s refurbishment was the alms box, which is now located to the right of the entrance to the sacristy. (In one photograph, in de Sède’s above mentioned book, we can see it close to the statue of Asmodeus, at the entrance of the church). We should pose the question why it were specifically these items that Saunière desired to keep – and none of the others. Sceptics may argue that everything else was in such a ruinous state that it had to be thrown away and that the priest only kept that which was salvageable. But we note that the pulpit itself was definitely still in a functioning condition and yet was about to be thrown away – laying discarded on the floor until Captier made his discovery.

As many will know, Saunière reutilised the pillar of the master altar as a base for a statue of the Virgin, which he placed in the garden in front of the church. But to this we add the observation already made by the bell-ringer Antoine Captier as to the baluster and how its destiny was not one of reuse. It seems that as Saunière suddenly came into the possession of an important object which he had not, apparently, anticipated to find. As a consequence, he preserved the baluster, even though he had initially decided to dispose of it. Unlike the Visigothic pillar, he would not find a specific use for the baluster, but instead kept it near him… as if it was a precious reminder of a glorious moment?
Let us note that if Saunière merely did not want to throw the baluster away, he could have placed it in the sacristy, in his “secret room”, or in another corner of the church, or even incorporate it in some way or form in his redesigned church, like the base on which to place the offering box. But it seems that the artefact was so precious that he no longer was searching for a logical, practical use for it, but instead that he cherished it for its emotional value, keeping it close to him. And let us note that the object has little artistic, religious or archaeological value.

Baluster and symbolism

Let us once again refocus on the baluster though. It is made from wood, consisting out of the assembly of four parts. It is 85 centimetres in height and the top is square, each width measuring 29 centimetres. It is clear, from the discolouration and other visual aspects, that one side obviously was positioned against the wall.
For Gérard de Sède, it had a touch of the Renaissance to it, and he thus wrote that its “capital is decorated with pomegranate sheets, which proves that the one who sculpted it was educated, for “pomegranate” in Greek is “balaustion”, from which the word baluster comes from.” Admittedly, the correlation was appealing and easy for this author whose forte it was to show the esoteric approaches of this story. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that he made not more of the link between the pomegranate, its fruit and the link with Freemasonry and its pomegranate decorations, placed on top of the “B” and “J” columns at the entrance of the lodge. Or perhaps that was even too much for de Sède?
However, if the motif for the top of the pillar is indeed a vegetable representation, possibly inspired by the foliage of a pomegranate, it is definitely not the same for other “foliage” on the pillar. Those seem to resemble the rolling of a crosier, or an acanthus. This fern-motif, does it suggest that the wooden rollers found inside the stone pillar “rest in dried ferns”? It is only a question, but it is, in such matters, best never to neglect anything – to quote Poussin’s motto.
There is a further intriguing detail in these decorations. In observing the tracing of what de Sède has seen as the leaves of a pomegranate, there is a second tracing, suggestive of eight legs, with an advanced body and the head of a spider… or an octopus. Indeed, it would be imprudent if not dangerous to claim that it is one or the other. But we merely make a note of it, for we know that it is an “object” that would later take on a primary importance in the story of the Priory of Sion… and they must have gotten their inspiration from somewhere. And seeing that one of their co-operators, de Sède, was so wax-lyrical about the pomegranates…

As to the form of the baluster, the column begins, on the ground, with a solid base in the shape of an octagon – the first independent part of the ensemble, which continues with an, in the beginning, circular section which becomes smaller over three to four sections. There is a further cylinder without any decoration, just to the bottom of the capital, the second independent part of the artefact. Then comes the vegetable decoration (the final independent part of the baluster), ending with the final square surface.

A hiding place

On top, to one side, sits the hiding place about which Antoine Captier spoke and which according to him, made Saunière a wealthy man. And according to Captier, the hiding place contained a very small glass vial. But that is not all. Antoine Captier, the grandson, revealed to us that the slide hiding the contents inside had to be worm-eaten to explain why it opened under the initial impact, when the baluster was thrown to the floor. What we observe is a diagonal latch that lines up perfectly with a notch in the interior of the capital. But this piece of wood, upon careful observation, is not in the vein of the vegetable fibres of the base and perhaps not of the same material. That is at least what one can distinguish on the artefact itself. We can estimate the variation of this latch at being close to 20 degrees, and it takes the height of the capital. If the latter secures the closing of his hiding place, one could argue that it was inclined, i.e. not vertical, and regulated the dimensions of the vial that was placed inside. It is as such that it could not exceed the dimensions of the passage: less than 29 centimetres long and less than 5 centimetres wide. The depth poses another problem. According to Antoine Captier, who is of course an expert in the matter, the hiding place is not profound.

Some possible scenarios can therefore be put forward:
1. The hiding place indeed contained a glass vial, but the vial would have to have been very thin. As such, the vial could not have contained a long or broad document… and even less a relic, unless it was in a powdery format.
2. It contained a document which, folded tight, could then sit inside the small space. In this scenario, only a small document would be able to hide here.
These are more or less the only logical scenarios that one can envision about this small “secret stash”.

Nostalgia

Though the story of the baluster and the find is at the centre of the mystery of the village priest, it is also hotly contested. Yet within the story, there are two things beyond dispute. One is the fact that Antoine Captier has a clear and uncontested involvement in this story; his testimony originated from within his own family, his namesake and grandfather, who was not only a principal witness, but actually the main agent in this discovery. Secondly, Antoine and his wife Claire still have the original baluster. It means that the evidence is still able to be tested and observations can be verified.
However, from what has all the appearances of a legitimate discovery, the question is what the discovery was about. The baluster is at best dating back to the Renaissance period and will not be older. It was probably placed there when the pulpit was raised. These details suggest that the contents in the hiding place of the baluster would not contain something that predates the Renaissance, unless, of course, an older document was placed inside the baluster, becoming its new hiding place.

Let us also note that Saunière was not expecting to find something inside this baluster, for the baluster was about to be disposed of, and it was the bell-ringer Captier who accidentally stumbled upon the hiding place. So if Saunière was searching for something which he knew was hidden “somewhere” in his church, as some theories allege, emptying the entire church to its bare walls if not beyond, rebuilding (“redecorating”) it would have been a logical approach. But within that framework, it’s clear that he was neglecting key sites. If he was on the lookout for something specific, he obviously had not been paying attention to the baluster. And hence, we should put a major question mark as to whether Saunière was searching for whatever it was which was hidden inside the baluster. It has all the appearances of an accidental and fortuitous discovery.

To hide the hiding place

But there is more to learn about this baluster, hiding a secret which in truth had been in plain sight, like the famous letter of Edgar Allan Poe. In the church register, there is an entry for the burial of one “Dame Anne Delsol” in 1705, who is buried “in the church, in the Tomb of the Lords, which is close to the baluster”. This entry makes it abundantly clear that the point of reference in locating the tomb of the Lords, again seen by many as one of the crucial sites in the mystery, was this specific baluster. It also means that by removing this baluster, Saunière may have been removing the “clue” as to where the tomb was.
Indeed, the description of how to locate, let alone access, the Tomb of the Lords is rather elaborate. It would have been far easier if there had been an opening covered up with wood or a flagstone that would provide access to the kingdom of the deceased Hautpoul family. But as this was not the case and as the point to even locate the entrance was by means of the baluster, it is clear that someone had gone through a lot of effort not to make the entrance too obvious. But it also means that for anyone who did go into the crypt, that person would have to pass, by default, by this wooden pillar. The side of the latch is on the opposite side of the wall and the careful observer who would pass so class near the baluster would not have been able to miss the hiding place.
Indeed, it is more than likely that Saunière was aware of the entry into the church register. He would have been “expected” to read it, for it provides background information on his church and its villagers. And if he had read the register, he would have known that the entrance to the crypt was near the baluster. So the question is whether he carried out the works to the pulpit and the baluster in order to facilitate access to this tomb. And in that case, the demolition of the baluster was part of Saunière’s plan, but the discovery of the hidden cache itself was a bonus. Still, long before Saunière, it is clear that the hiding place would have been visible to someone entering the crypt. And we should thus wonder whether it is logical to assume that someone who had access to the crypt, was also “allowed” to see the latch… and might have realised what was hidden inside the baluster. Were it two pieces of the same puzzle, one secured inside the baluster as “insurance”?

Contents: unknown, possibly fragile

Despite decades of speculation, no-one is on the record as knowing and stating what the glass vial contained. According to Antoine Captier, it was a “parchment” that was handed over to Saunière. It begs the question whether he opened the vial, or whether it may have already been broken. The priest claimed, when he received it, that it were “relics without any value”. We do not know whether Saunière waited until he was alone to open or read it, and whether or not he informed Captier immediately, or later. Still, if it were “unimportant” relics, it begs the question whether Captier, who obviously had a keen eye for him to have seen the vial in the first place, could not distinguish between a small reliquary and a parchment. It is unlikely that Captier was mistaken… and it is rather clear that Captier must have realised that Saunière was lying to him. Furthermore, if these were “unimportant relics”, what happened to them? Where are they? Why hide them? Why make Captier so suspicious and inquisitorial about what Saunière was doing?

Though they were hence no doubt “important”, the string of theories that has been hung upon their contents is somewhat endless. The tenors of the mystery have claimed that the glass vial contained three parchments, signed by Blanche de Castille: a genealogical tree, tackling the genealogy of Dagobert II, as well as two coded texts copied from the Gospels. Whatever its contents, it obviously was of sufficient importance for the person hiding it in the baluster. Finally, let us note that for those who claim that Saunière kept a meticulous and comprehensive record of everything he did, we note that there is no such information present in his infamous “notebooks”.

The return of the baluster on a fresco

The baluster as we know it today received, due to the efforts of Saunière, a new system of closing the hiding place… as if the object suddenly had taken on value after the accidental discovery. Saunière treasured it and the object has survived the last century. It would not have been notorious had it not been for Gérard de Sède, who ignited the mystery of what its contents could be. De Sède caused a commotion, just like the baluster had caused a commotion with Saunière. Few – if any – have noted that the baluster, though having disappeared from the church in its physical form, is nevertheless still present in a two-dimensional format: it is depicted on the fresco that sits at the back of the church, above the confessional.
The fresco hides the old entrance of the Wisigothic chapel of the lords of Rennes. On the bottom right, there is a rather sombre zone, where there are certain details that are seldom the topic of discussion. The most often-discussed aspect of this sector is an old person (a woman?), bent forward, apparently leaning on an umbrella. In the background, there is a small village, surrounded by hills. The foreground is littered with giant rocks… but closest to us, is the upper part of a column. And when we look at the drawing in more detail, it becomes clear that its shape is identical to the upper part of the baluster. In close-up, we can even see the schematised ornamentation which Gérard de Sède described as pomegranate leaves and even the crosier. It seems that the attachment of Saunière to this pillar went so far that he even depicted it within this fresco. For those with eyes to see, the baluster had never left the church… and what to make of the sack of gold that is painted elsewhere on the fresco?

The baluster today

Antoine Captier is presently the owner of the baluster. He tries to maintain the artefact as good as he can. He showed the baluster to us in its dismantled format. We thus verified that the heavy octagonal base was equipped with a system that allowed for the integration of the upper part of the baluster. The question which he and others have pondered is whether, if the baluster contains one hiding place, it may elsewhere contain a second. Perhaps Saunière indeed knew or suspected the same and rather than a precious memory, the baluster was actually preserved by him because he knew that there was a further “secret” contained within the baluster – yet perhaps one he did not need to “spoil”, as he had already been made aware of what this was through other means? But that, of course, is merely speculation on our part…

continued >>

André Douzet
We would like to thank Claire and Antoine Captier, the owners of the baluster, who welcomed us into their home and answered all of our questions about the object, as well as allowing us to photograph the baluster in all its aspects. We also thank Nathalie for acting as our photographer.