The church of St Michael (Perillos) The engraved stone above the entrance

 

The entrance of the church of St Michael is on the northern side of the building; not, as one could expect, in the west. It is a sober passage, without any decoration, in a Roman style, made from an arch created out of 14 stones. The dimensions are 140 by 205 cm.
There are no external decorations, which is surprising. The only “decoration” is an inscription on top of the entrance porch. It is, however, unreadable with the naked eye. The flagstone is lined by a series of small stones that stick out of the wall, as if to delineate and stress the contents of the stone – in which case, the stone is either terribly weathered by age, or badly (and barely) inscribed.
You might think that the inscription is a dedication of the church of St Michael; the church was also the old feudal vault of the village of “Périllous”. It thus seemed important to make a copy of the stone and its inscription.

Old inscriptions

The stone measures 65 by 28 cm, with a break on the lower right-hand side. It contains a series of engraved letters, spread over 5 lines, measuring 5.5cm each. These lines are framed one engraved edge at 1 cm of the side of the stone. However, what we believed was a dedication, was actually a reparation.

REPARATIONS
FAICTES PAR MEI
PIERRE QVIERICM
ET GERAVIGRES
DURBAN 1761

The letters presented here in italic are those of which we are not certain. We could thus rework the inscription to:

REPARATIONS
FAITES PAR MOI
PIERRE QUIERICM
ET GERAU IGRES
DURBAN 1761

This translates as:

REPAIRS
MADE BY ME
PIERRE QUIERICM
AND GERAU IGRES
DURBAN 1761

References to Durban-Gléon

Some remarks regarding this inscription. First of all, the last sentence: DURBAN 1761. It is true that at that time, the church of Perillos depended to Durban. Yet, reality is more complex than that, for the reason that the title and the capacities are in the name of the Marquis of Gléon.

Since July 19, 1753, the titles and possessions were in the name of Gléon-Durban, lords of La Treille de Fozières vineyard. As such, the title of “Durban” is in theory incorrect, but acceptable, for example if it all occurred on order of the priest of Durban.
There is another matter surrounding the family possession of the territory and titles of the viscount of Perillos. In the act, noted by Doctor Paul Courrent, there is a detail about the second son of the lords of Gléon-Durban. Marie, Josep, Jacques Philippe François of La Treille (Gléon-Durban) entered “the Order of St John of Jerusalem where he was received in the rank and file of the Knights of Justice in the Noble Language of Provence”. He was even equipped with a sum that “could be used as ransom in the event of slavery”, by notary act of notary Manchel on April 6, 1762. Interestingly, a copy of this act of admission would be requested from Boeuf, secretary of the Noble Language, on April 11, 1797… and would be certified by Jean André Caruson, consular of the French Republic.” He certified the authenticity and the signatures on the act. We should note that both Boeuf and Caruson played an important in the affaire of the escape from France (to Spain) of Bigou, the priest of Rennes-le-Château. The escape occurred via “Périllous”, as one can read in the register of the church of St Michael of Perillos.

In summary, the family were nobles that maintained an allegiance with the Order of Malta; the order also dealt with the church of Perillos. And yet nowhere in the family files, thoroughly researched by Paul Courrent, the doctor who also treated Berenger Saunière late in his life, do we find references to “reparations”.
However, let us also note that the Order of Malta also pops up earlier in the 18th century, specifically with Ramon de Perellos y Roccafull, a nobleman who had bought the title of Perillos as well and used it while he was Grandmaster of the Order of Malta, until his death in 1720. His tomb is not located in the Co-cathedral of St John in Valetta. And we need to wonder whether there is any relationship between the various events of his title, his death and the relationship he might have had with the lords of Durban and their membership in the Order.

We also add to this that the Gléon-Durban family stated they would like to be buried, as their title of Viscount of Perillos, in the vault of Perillos “under the old chapel”. However, they were instead buried in the Carolingian vault of the castle of Gléon. It is not known why they wanted to be buried in Perillos, or why the were not buried there. But it should be noted that the vault of Perillos was far removed from the family home of Gléon.

« Repairs »

Back to our inscription, which speaks of “repairs”. Logically, repairs are associated with a sense of emergency, after some disaster or because of the test of time. To leave an inscription of this nature and in such a prominent location does not seem to indicate this was routine maintenance or small repairs. The inscription suggests work was performed that was substantial in size. Still, Paul Courrent found no trace in the accounts of the Gléon-Durban about expenses of a “repair” for the church of Perillos. There is also no mention of such repairs in the register of the church itself. Strange repairs, it seems. What type of reparation warranted the erection of an inscription above the church, but did not warrant an entry in the register of the church – or of the viscounts?

A repair, or “réparation” in French, has got certain connotations. It also means to repurchase an act, an action, a fact… which brings about more possibilities as to the nature of what occurred on the site. It could thus for example be a type of revenge or an honorary debt. But if that is the case, it should be noted that such disputes were seldom aired in public and normally remained within the restrictive framework of the families involved.

So, in the final analysis, it suggests that the “repairs” were indeed that: repairs to the fabric of the church. As to why they were not recorded in the church register, even though they were visibly advertised above the entrance might have several reasons. One reason might be that the non-inclusion in the register was an attempt to “remove” details of these repairs. At the same time, for the people in the village, it would have been clear that repairs had occurred and leaving a memento to the events might have been a normal thing to do by those who performed the work. Further details on the workmen involved might shed further light on the enigmatic inscription.