Forgotten secrets of the church of Rennes-le-Château Part 3: From the altar to the foyer of Saunière

 

Demolition work in progress

Let us reassemble inside the church of Rennes-le-Château, at the time when the workmen are demolishing the old main altar of the sanctuary. The new altar ready to be installed is from the workshop of Monna in Toulouse. The invoice reveals a cost of 700 francs, donated by the generous benefactor “Madamme M. Calvailhé” of Coursan, on July 27, 1887. The invoice would of course date the delivery of the altar and not necessarily the date when the works commenced or were completed. It is likely that preparations for the installation of the new altar began in late 1886 or early 1887, as there would be a likely link with the installation of the circular stained glass window in the choir, which is behind the main altar.

The altar as we see it today is largely in agreement with what Saunière had installed. And it may be that the style of the altar was what set the tone for the other decorations in the church. The installation of the altar seems to have been the start of a series of redecorations that would lead Saunière to several discoveries… and would make him a wealthy man.
Let us also note that his workmen were not randomly let loose on the site. For one, at the beginning, he did not have the necessary funds to carry out continuous works. But equally, at first, we never see Saunière let his workforce tackle corners of the church where nothing is then subsequently found. At first, everywhere he tells them to carry out some work, they find something that is of direct interest to Saunière. In short, he knows where to look… if not what to look for. Someone has told him, or something is available to him that he can consult. Notes left behind by Bigou perhaps? Of course, there is always the possibility that Saunière was a very fortunate man. And indeed, perhaps he did win the lottery several times over to gain the enormous wealth he had at his disposal. Indeed, we are joking…

It seems apparent that Saunière’s restoration project began following his exile in Narbonne. If Saunière had a mission from day one, he would likely have kept his mouth shut and not speak out against the Republic from the pulpit. But after a year in exile, he not only had a donation from the Countess de Chambord, he also seemed to have a “mission” in life, which seemed to dig up every bit of the village he could lay his hands on. In 1885, Saunière had left as a royalist priest; in 1886, it s that he returned as a treasure hunter.

The origin of the main altar

The main altar was tackled first. It seemed no longer “in vogue”, though one pillar was obviously fashionable enough to be worked into the small garden in front of the church. It is now known that the pillar had a hiding place. Once sealed and incorporated into the main altar, it was impossible to access it without destroying the main altar. This means two things: whatever was hidden, dated back to when the altar was built. If Saunière knew there was something hidden inside, it was clear that someone had told him, for there was no visible clue that allowed Saunière to “guess” or “know” what the altar contained. In this scenario, it is clear that “the knowledge” was preserved across several centuries.

The main altar is located in the choir of the church. It is the location where the mass is celebrated. At the time, let us note that the priest would be facing towards the altar, not towards the congregation. It is also the most important part of the church; the “holiest of holies”. And any workman asked to dismantle an ancient altar inside a church would no doubt do so with respect and calm, rather than smash about the place. He would be even more careful if the priest had told him that he had plans for the old altar, once removed, so could the workmen please be careful during their dismantling.
The main altar is often where the hosts were stored, on top of the “table” that forms the “work surface” of the altar. On the invoice of the altar as offered by Madame Cavailhé, we see that there is indeed mention of a “ciborium” – the box where the hosts are kept. Furthermore, running somewhat ahead of his time, Saunière also installs what we today consider to be the altar, but which in his time was seen as a “table of sacrifice”.
There is therefore already a difference in customs between today and Saunière’s time, but as we do not precisely know how old the main altar was, let us note that between its time of construction and Saunière’s, various other customs of celebrating mass were changed. These include where precisely the hosts were stored, where the “tomb” of the relics was located, etc. So identifying where precisely everything was or should be when Saunière began his redecorations is a difficult, indeed impossible, task.

Where was the altar?

Though we know that the old altar of Rennes-le-Château was made out of stone, we do in fact not know whether it rested on one or two pillars. Like everyone else, we have assumed it were two, as it seems logical. When we look at the Visigothic pillar, we note that the “backside” is not decorated. It shows clearly that this side was meant to be placed against a wall, and not some distance away from it. This detail reveals a small “defect” in the sense that it would not support the “table” in its longitudinal axis, which could cause an overhang that could likely expose some parts in a rather non-aesthetic manner. And it is for this reason that a second pillar has been assumed as logically present.
Though he removed the altar, according to Jacques Rivière in “Le fabuleux trésor de Rennes-le-Château” (Bélisane, 1983): “the priest would not break the old altar. Indeed, he carefully preserves it. He will make use of it later for his private chapel, behind the Villa Bethania, which still exists.” This statement is totally erroneous, for we know for a fact that one of the pillars of the old altar is – was – located under the statue of the Virgin in his garden. Furthermore, one merely has to look at this private altar in a type of conservatory at the back of the Villa to know that this is something that dates from the 19th century.

One or two pillars?

We know the location of one pillar, but what happened to the second pillar and the slab? It was Gérard de Sède who made the opening shot in this story, in his “L’or de Rennes” (Juillard, 1967): “The main altar is the most beautiful ornament of the church; it sat on two ancient pillars, of the Visigothic period, and were finely sculpted with crosses and hieroglyphs […] The heavy flagstone was removed. Surprise! One of the pillars is hollow, stuffed with dried ferns. In this nest of ferns, three wooden tubes, sealed with wax, are discovered. They are opened; they contain parchments.”
Indeed, let us note that they were indeed parchments. At the time, the mayor’s office was informed of this discovery, for he requested a copy of them from Saunière. The annoying fact is that these reproductions were done, but that their location had become lost by the time when de Sède wrote his book. So there are two certainties: manuscripts and a hollow cavity. De Sède speaks of “a pillar”. And we all immediately jump to the conclusion that it “must be” the pillar that sits in the garden, as it has a hollow cavity, and it is retained by Saunière. As to the whereabouts of the other one… we do not know, so we do not consider it. The second pillar was also believed to have no ornamentation, so it is likely that Saunière did not want to retain it, as it had no artistic value. But let us note that de Sede speaks of “a pillar”. And nothing suggests that it could not have been the other, now apparently missing, pillar that was the pillar where this cache of documents was hidden.
Irrelevant of which pillar, we note that to access a secret cache in either, we need to remove the slab, which would have been secured to the wall, so that the entire construction was more stable. Some may argue that this is pure speculation on our part and that we have no evidence to support this conclusion, but this is not the case. There is evidence that the slab was attached to the wall. In fact, the slab still exists and can be visited by anyone who so desires. But before going there, let us remain in front of the old altar and note how it was secured to the wall. Why not suppose that there was another potential hiding place in the wall, i.e. the cavity created to welcome the length of the slab? It would be another potential cache which no-one would know about, unless someone was told about it. We are not saying there was a cache hidden there, merely that this is yet another potential hiding place.

Dead weight

So where is the altar slab? We found hardly any mention of it in the books on Rennes-le-Château, suggesting that either none of them were interested in it, or were not aware of its existence. If the latter were the case, it is scary that authors who are able to come up with the most ingenious theories, nevertheless seem to have no awareness of the “basic ingredients” that make up the “soup” of Rennes-le-Château.
Quite simply, the stone was worked into the modifications that Saunière was doing to the presbytery, his primary residence. We have already noted that in this presbytery, which he was redoing at the same time, he also found a subterranean access that led underneath the church. It was accessed from the location of where the chimney is situated. The site was reopened during the recent work that transformed the presbytery into a museum.
This detail suggests that Saunière wanted to keep a close and “protected” eye on this location. Though this hearth sits on top of an iron-cast plate, the latter itself sits on top of a stone that is slightly raised from the kitchen floor itself. This is the case for most old kitchen with an open fire. I assume the reader understands where we are going with this. Indeed, the large stone used to stabilise the hearth was the old slab of the altar. And he used this stone slab to seal off the subterranean entrance that led underneath the church, and which was reopened in the early 1990s. Indeed, it is as visible as that: for everyone to see, though not seen by anyone.

More works in progress

After works carried out by the “Terre de Rhedae”, this slab rested for a long time against a wall, in the forecourt of the presbytery. It seemed like it was slowly becoming a forgotten object and though it sat in an even more prominent location, even more people did not recognise what it was. The notable exception is D. Baudreu, who even listed its dimensions. Indeed, he is in total agreement with what we have written above, stating: “On the other hand, in refitting the presbytery, the plate of the hearth was moved, when its aspect evoked that of an altar stone, an assumption that was confirmed during its removal.” He then adds that this “opinion” is shared by Marcel Durliat, professor emeritus in the history of art, at the University of Toulouse-le-Mirail, Nelly Pousthomis (University of Pau) and André Bonnery, Doctor of Letters. So we are in excellent company…
We also spoke to Antoine Captier about this object, who confirmed its dimensions: a length of 147 centimetres, 93cm wide and 19cm thick. We note that Captier entered this information in 1991 in an issue of the Terre de Rhedae’s magazine. We note that these dimensions are practically the same dimensions as the original altar slab of the church of Perillos.
Let us note that a chamfer was added to this stone, at the time when it became used as the floor of the chimney, this so that it could be adjusted in relationship to the floor.

The Knights’ stone

To the list of “secrets”, we need to add one final one: the so-called “Dalle des chevaliers”, or Knights’ stone. Today, it is on display inside the museum. The stone is another milestone along the various discoveries that Saunière made in his church. According to some authors, its location was in front of the original main altar. For others, it formed part of the floor of the choir. For some, it was even near the famous baluster or as a vertical separation between the choir and the nave.
Once again it seems that on the surface Saunière is the fortunate beneficiary of a fortunate coincidence. Once again, there were witnesses present, but once again, versions vary according to which author is reporting the “facts”. Furthermore, the scene, largely that of knights on horseback, is interpreted by several in somewhat fanciful manners. Some give an esoteric aspect to this rather mundane depiction; some even go as far as to argue that this stone depicts the flight of a royal child, finding refuge in Rennes. All we will say is that this is once again an old object, which the Monuments de France has labelled as “high Middle Ages”, like the “Visigothic” pillar. The official note states that the slab was found in 1884-1885 underneath the altar of the Roman church of Rennes-le-Château. Those dates, as well as the location, are intriguing, and it would be of interest to one day learn where this “official information” came from.

Again, we will begin our consultation of the available literature with Gérard de Sède. He speaks of the discovery being made by two masons. “Helped by two masons, he [Saunière] displaced a slab which was located in front of the altar. It was a sculpted stone, placed upside down, i.e. with the worked surfaced turned to the bottom. When he had noticed what was on the bottom side, Saunière sent the two masons away, claiming that it was time to have their lunch. But they had time to notice an ‘ola’ (a pot) filled with sparkling objects. To one of the masons who asked what it was, he replied: ‘They are medals from Lourdes.’ As the mason wanted to have some of them, the priest told him: ‘they are without value and you can’t do anything with them.’” Let us note that these are the same workmen whom de Sède had working on the Visigothic pillar.
Pierre Jarnac, in "Histoire du Trésor de Rennes-le-Château” (Bélisane, 1998), speaks of two children that helped the priest: “In this task, the priest was helped by two young boys from the village. Little Rousset, who was about ten years old, and Antoine Verdier have, for their part, kept a precious souvenir of the events that would punctuate this work. Indeed, on Sunday, following mass, Saunière demanded these choir boys, who were nine or ten years old, to carry out a small job for him the following Thursday, after catechism. […] On that day, after catechism, Saunière closed the church from the inside. On the floor of the central alley, not far from the stone walkway through which one accesses the choir, iron bars were laid out close to a large plain flagstone […] In the end, the goodwill and efforts of all involved led to a result: the stone slowly began to rise bit by bit. They shifted it a little, which allowed them to see certain steps going down. Unfortunately, it was sombre, despite a ray of sunlight that lit up the nave. As it was noon, Saunière thanked them, saying: ‘listen, we stop the work; you can go and enjoy yourselves.’”

It is clear that both versions are vastly different. In Jarnac’s version, there is no mention of “medals from Lourdes”, nothing shining whatsoever. They are not masons, but children. And Jarnac speaks of steps leading somewhere… but to where? Indeed, if not most importantly, the location of where the stone was supposed to be is different. But let us note that in the parish register, we have already chanced upon the following information: “in the chapel, the tomb of the lords, which is near the baluster”. That is largely where Jarnac locates his version of events. And if we were asked to side with either de Sède or Jarnac, on this one, we would go with Jarnac.

Let us also note another “incident” in the church of Rennes-le-Château, again according to Pierre Jarnac. This time, we are at the location of the old main altar, but after the discovery of the Knights’ Stone. Elie Bot and his workmen are now present to witness another discovery, in the presence of other witnesses, including one of the foster sisters of Marie Dénarnaud. All of these people were apparently there on orders of the priest, to disencumber the site of the old altar. But then… as always, apparently, a coincidence: “Digging up the place, the shovels ran up against some bricks which moved, revealing a hiding place in which the witnesses could clearly distinguish a pot filled with shining objects. As the discovery was made on a Saturday around noon, Saunière cleverly let the workmen go, under the pretext that it was time for lunch and time to relax. This time though, he thinks it is good to point out to them that they are ‘men of honour’.” Pierre Jarnac adds that news of this discovery spread, but apparently without any follow-up. Could it be that de Sède mixed two stories into one?

This version once again comes with some astonishing details. For example, there are professional workmen on site, yet somehow, Saunière has also called in the help of some women? If anything, they would have been totally unfamiliar with the type of work that was being carried out and would thus have been of little value, except if they were there to make sure that the men did not create an absolute mess, or to clean up after the men. Still, we already note that Elie Bot may have been an accomplice of Saunière and perhaps these women were too?

The foot of the Calvary and the mission of Cassini

Saunière intended to place this slab at the foot of “the Calvary”, we are told. This could be both the base of the pillar that keeps the Virgin upright, or the great cross that sits nearby in the garden and which was inaugurated by Mgr. Billard. It is really only the latter that is worthy of the term Calvary.
We thus have four objects: two pillars (baluster and Visigothic pillar) and two slabs: the altar stone and the Knight’s Stone. One pillar and one stone are placed in the garden in front of the church, one pillar and one stone are placed in the presbytery. A nice distribution, a very nice symmetry. Coincidence, or design?

We also note that this “cross of the mission” is precisely opposite the Visigothic pillar and the Virgin Mary. It is on the latter that Saunière added the words MISSION and 1891. It is the only alteration that Saunière has made on any of the four objects he chose to preserve from the old church.
It is on this cross that there is the “processional cross”. We could thus state that there is talk of two “missionary crosses”, to which Saunière then added the statement MISSION and the year 1891. But that is not all. It may be a pure coincidence, but we know that the date 1891 when inverted becomes 1681. A lot of speculation exists as to what this may mean and what Saunière was trying to say. To the list of possibilities, we need to add that there is another “Calvary Stone”, in Perillos, which marks the work carried out on the mapping of France, done by the Cassini family in the 17th century. Though this cross has 1681 as date, in truth, it was erected in 1891, stating “commémorant la mission du premier relevé cartographique”, or commemorating the first cartographic survey mission. Mission! Coincidence? Or was Sauniere aware? Let us also note that the views from this Calvary reveal certain “aspects” of a landscape that Saunière then incorporated into his model. Coincidence, or design?

Memories of the original church

A lot has been made about the church of Rennes-le-Château. Many authors have seen these Visigothic remains as evidence that the church is “very old” and hence because it is old and dedicated to Mary Magdalene, it “could” have an ancient secret attached to it, which many have then linked to Mary Magdalene.
But the truth is that the dedication of the church of Mary Magdalene is rather recent and there is no evidence that these two Visigothic remains were themselves native to the church. Indeed, it is quite possible – though it cannot be easily proven – that these two “Visigothic artefacts” (which in truth are Carolingian) themselves were once present in the first church of Rennes-le-Château, dedicated to St Peter. This was destroyed in the 14th century, in 1362 to be precise, by Catalan mercenaries under the command of Henri de Trastamare. The church would never be rebuilt and the castle’s chapel was instead converted into the village church, placed under the vocation of St Mary Magdalene. It is possible that when the old church was abandoned, some of the artefacts that were still in a presentable condition were transferred into the new church. What Saunière removed from his church, yet carefully preserved, were elements that may have been previously transferred from one church to another. It seems that these stones had a life of their own, and preserved some secret that Saunière was able to profit from. But rather than an ancient secret dating back to Mary Magdalene, it may have been a secret that was held by the local family and “hidden” in the late 14th century.

André Douzet
We would like to thank Antoine Captier for his confidence, his measurements of the altar
and all the other information that he was willing to confide in us.