Bérenger Saunière in Lyon

 

Trouble in the Pilat region

Saunière came to Lyon – that much we now know. But did he merely come here for business in the city itself? The fact that he rented a vehicle suggests he did not. But where did he go? It would seem an almost impossible mission to find out, but fortune is on our side.
First of all, of the many companies Saunière could have used, he used Bellon. This company specialised – and may have been the sole provider – of vehicles to Chavanay and St Pierre de Boeuf, which sits at the foot of the Pilat. Fortunately, we know that one of Saunière’s vehicles broke down. This occurred in Chavanay, close to the station, where his vehicle was attended to. It suggests that he was on his way to Pélussin.

The area of interest

Did the priest merely come here to sightsee? We do not think so. Furthermore, another researcher, Patrick Berlier, has investigated this area, underlining the “mystery” of this region. It seems likely that Saunière was attracted to it for the same reason…
The name of the region – Pilat – has been linked with Pontius Pilate, the man who condemned Jesus to death. Legend has it that he committed suicide, by drowning himself in the source of the river Gier, even though the legend seems to be without a historical foundation. It is not the only connection with the apotheosis of the New Testament: in the valley of Gier is a fort known as Châteauneuf. At its foot is a chapel, dedicated to Mary Magdalene, contained relics of Lazarus.
The fort is, according to the accounts, a stronghold to defend the Lupé family and estates. The thickness of the walls definitely suggests it could have been such a stronghold. But its position makes it hard to imagine what it was defending. There is no clear strategic or commercial interest to defend, which therefore does not seem to justify such an imposing system of defence. Still, it sits there…
The building is very curious – specifically inside. Inside the building are the walls of an extremely old construction. In the southwest is a walled door. The frame is in a perfect (if not almost abnormal) state of conservation, of a Gothic style and origin. The base of the mouldings contains many strange drawings, difficult to interpret.

The Mary Magdalene chapel

Continuing on this path, we find a chapel dedicated to St Anthony, then that of Mary Magdalene. The altar has a painting of Mary Magdalene, which bears a striking resemblance to the painting inside Saunière’s church in Rennes-le-Château. The saint is praying inside a cave, kneeling, her hands crossed, in front of a cross made of wood that is still showing its branches. There is also a human skull and an unrolled parchment.
The most important detail is the landscape that is visible in the opening of the cave. One can distinguish the two tops that are the most characteristic of the Pilat: the Peak of the Three Teeth and the Crêt of Oeillon. This mountain is represented with the cross that marks its top, and which was set up in 1867. This detail enables us to date the painting, which would be thus posterior to this date.
Did Saunière see this painting? We know that Saunière’s cart was repaired near Chavanay, which means that the incident occurred in the sector of Pélussin and not near of Lupé, Maclas, Roisey or Véranne. We also note that the incident involved the bearing of the axis, which would normally only occur if the vehicle was used under difficult conditions, i.e. roads or tracks unsuitable for motor vehicles. The state of the track, from Champailler towards the chapel of Mary Magdalene, definitely would be a challenge for the type of vehicles Saunière used.

The War Memorial

There is another intriguing coincidence. We know that the statues of the church in Rennes-le-Château came from H. Giscard, based in Toulouse. He also made some War Memorials, and one of these, we find in the Pilat, near one of the charterhouses. It is an important question: how do we explain that a church in a small village in the Pilat has a War Memorial that comes from a Toulouse workshop, whereas in St Etienne and especially in Lyon, there are more and better shops than that of Giscard. It suggests a connection between Saunière’s area and this area, just like we know that book dealers in Lyon were aware of Saunière’s library.

The theft of Mary Magdalene

After we announced the existence of the painting in the chapel of St Mary Magdalene, it was stolen. From what we could learn, the plunderers, not being able to penetrate through the door, therefore entered through the roof. However, to make such an entry required much time and effort, underlining the dedication of the burglars. Then, it seems, nothing but the painting was stolen. Furthermore, the painting was carefully cut out. The frame remained, apparently of no interest to the plunderers.
The painting itself has no artistic importance. It is the work of a local painter. Its only value, it seems, is our identification as a key in the mystery of Saunière. Furthermore, the type of theft suggests it was a perfectly orchestrated act, not a random burglary. We could even speculate that the theft had the specific purpose to make sure that a forgotten clue to the true extent of the mystery of Rennes-le-Château was quickly removed from the searchers. Obviously, if what we had said back then was the only extent of the mystery, the plundering would have arrived too late… the news was out; we had published depictions of it and were in the possession of slides and photographs that would allow for powerful reproductions.
Could someone have realised that – as we do – we had, at the time, left out part of the answer? It is our custom to hint, and – over time – begin to fill in more and more pieces of the puzzle. This greatly angers researchers, for a quite bizarre reason: we often give out clues, which these researchers can then follow up. But quite often, these invitations are not taken up and instead ridicule is levelled at us.
But let us not concentrate on the way in which the human mind works… let us instead concentrate on the back of this painting, which indeed contained information that we did not make public at the time.
Of course, we have photographs and the like of the back of the picture – but perhaps the burglars hoped we did not. Even so, the theft has made it difficult to substantiate the following “claim”: that Saunière himself may – may – have left a clear indication of his visit here.

“I came. BS priest.”

The back of the painting has three names, all local, specifically the name of a pious family, undoubtedly the sleeping partner that commissioned this painting. There is also a sentence, no doubt a religious devotion: "JM Jarau-Mermoutte J.M. - MM + S.A. - P.P.N. ". But, under this inscription is a label, with another, small laconic text: « je suis venu. BS prêtre » "I came. BS priest "… Admittedly, BS could be anyone, like “Benoit Sous”, but could it be Bérenger Saunière? Whoever it was who came, it was a priest, with the initials BS, and he obviously came here for a very specific reason. If not Saunière, it is a remarkable coincidence that another priest with the same initials came to this site – when we know that Saunière came to this region, rented a vehicle, a vehicle which broke down nearby. Coincidence? Or suggestive evidence?

next >>