The crypt of Rennes-le-Château Part 2: Correspondences

 

Why Perillos?

Why, how and when did Saunière become associated with Perillos? Reality is often a layering of several reasons as to why someone did something. Hence, here, we will try to answer this controversial question by stripping everything down to the bare bones. Hence, the working hypothesis that we shall use here, is that Saunière, by doing his “restorations” – read: excavations – in Rennes-le-Château, had become an expert in solving “church mysteries”.
That may seem to be a bizarre conclusion, but it will become apparent that it is a perfectly solid working hypothesis, as the questions that hang over Perillos, were also in place in Rennes-le-Château… where they had been resolved by Saunière when he penetrated into the crypt, largely in secret and without really sharing much if anything with his parishioners.
We need to remember that in 1900, Perillos was still an inhabited village and anyone who wanted to extract the secret from underneath the village, was likely going to approach this by excluding the villagers, as at least one of them was bound to object… Working in secret, of course, was the modus operandi Saunière is known to have employed in Rennes-le-Château as well.

Common feature one: from chapel to church

There are several direct correspondences between the church of Rennes-le-Château and that of Perillos – indeed, both villages as a whole are quite similar. Both are located on top of a relatively conical hill. More importantly, both churches were once chapels belonging to the local castle, but over time, they were physically separated from it and transformed, to become the village church.
In Perillos, we have noted the presence of a crypt, accessible from within the church. In Rennes-le-Château there too was a crypt, accessible from within the church. In Perillos, we have argumented that the crypt was part of a natural cave-system, with at least one other exit elsewhere – likely the one(s) indicated on Saunière’s model.
Thus, in time of war, the local lords would be able to lock themselves into their (then private) chapel, and via the crypt, move to safety, surfacing some distance from the immediate danger. This exit, ideally, would be “in the middle of nowhere”, as it would be unlikely that foreign troops were stationed there. It was therefore important to keep this “resurgence” secret, so that no-one could betray the local lords in their hour of need.
This method of escape would thus require the presence of a secret tunnel. In Rennes-le-Château we know there are several such tunnels and the local Hautpouls too may have installed such “emergency exits” in their chapel – before it was converted into the village church. A likely “escape tunnel” might have involved a connection between the crypt and what is now the cistern; a longer tunnel, surfacing much further away from the village, is also likely to have been in place.

Common feature two: water

Noting that Perillos was once known as “Perillos-les-Bains”, the evidence, as can still be inspected on the ground today, shows that the crypt was part of a larger system, whereby water was channelled through the crypt and surrounding areas. Similarly, there is the unconfirmed legend of the “underground lake” of Rennes-le-Chateau, which is likely to be an erroneous interpretation of the presence of the cisterns of the village that sit underneath the village… here too, the crypts might be linked to this underground network, only some walls might block one part of this system from the other. We use “might” as, of course, the validation of this needs to occur from within the crypt itself.
If, indeed, the drawings of Saussez suggest an altogether man-made crypt, the more natural mausoleum of San Juan de la Peña might be a better inspiration in trying to imagine what the underbelly of both Perillos and Rennes-le-Château might look like: a system of natural caves and tunnels, into which walls were built, so as to separate out the various parts of the crypts, and separate the crypt from the rest of the tunnel system.

In San Juan de la Peña, we know that water ran over the corpses that were placed in its mausoleum and a similar installation seems to be present in Perillos, judging from all the available evidence –clearly visible when standing in the village itself.
That water was also perilously – pun intended – close to the crypt of Rennes-le-Château is in evidence, noting that the garden in front of the church had a fountain and a cistern. Furthermore, we note that Saunière was at best ill-pleased when the local fire-brigade broke into the viewing room to gain access to the cistern underneath, an incident that occurred when he was not present. Was he afraid that someone might find how the water came into this cistern? Might someone have seen “cryptic clues” – pun intended? For, indeed, it is very unlikely – an inspection today can verify this – that the cistern was filled by rainwater.
Hence, perhaps Rennes-le-Château could also have been known as Rennes-les-Bains (en haut) – on high?

Everywhere you turn, it’s the same thing

In summary: the churches of Rennes-le-Château and Perillos are largely identical in location and set-up: a sanctuary on top of a system of natural caves, equipped with a complex irrigation system, part of which was converted into a crypt. Hence, returning to our working hypothesis, we can create a scenario, which is able to logically explain why Saunière became involved with the Perillos mystery: given his expertise in Rennes-le-Château, was he asked by someone or a group of people to see whether he could get access to the crypt of Perillos, without anyone in the village noticing it?

Then, as now, experts who were able to penetrate into crypts, without anyone noticing as much, were no doubt few and far between. It is indeed the bailiwick of “tombraiders”. That Saunière had been able to accomplish this feat without truly being found out (though it is clear his villagers suspected something was going on), must have been seen as a major accomplishment – by those who knew. To the likes of Gelis and Boudet, people familiar with the old appearance of the Rennes-le-Château church and themselves no fools in such matters, it may have triggered an idea: to initiate Saunière into “their” mystery, and see whether Saunière could boldly go where they had not gone before.
It is known that before their arrival in Coustaussa and Rennes-les-Bains, Gelis and Boudet had previously been posted in Durban-Corbières, which retained all the parish registers and other church information about Perillos. It means that both men had something in common.
Furthermore, even if not specifically looking for an adventure, the life of a young village priest was such that the archives were a means to stop boredom from setting in, but more specifically a means to learn more about the history of the village and the flock he was shepherding. If, however, the parish registers of Perillos contained information that spiked the interest of a young village priest, that might have been remembered by both priests and may have been discussed when they met up later in life during their posting near Rennes-le-Chateau. Finally, let us also note that though ingenious systems of transmissions have been devised as to how possibly Saunière might have received certain information from Bigou, amongst this pool of evidence and speculation, is the fact that there were traces in the registers of Rennes-le-Château itself that hinted towards the crypt.

The final outcome of this most simplistic of scenarios (again, we use basic assumptions, not necessarily the truth, as we know the truth is always more complex than logic) might have been that these two priests realised that Saunière could penetrate into the underground of Perillos, about which some detail might have been written down in the Perillos parish registers… just like Rennes researchers – and Saunière himself –found references to the crypt in the Rennes-le-Château registers.

Did he?

We know that Saunière went to Durban-Corbières, hung out with local families (which possessed the Perillos archives) and began to have long “constitutional walks” in that area, just like he had done, and did, in Rennes-le-Château. Indeed, walking is an excellent means through which to learn the “lay of the land” and through which certain anomalies, like fault-lines, can be visibly perceived. Saunière had “the eye” to see such geological features, as he acquired a level of experience, mastered in Rennes-le-Château. Hence, he would have seen Perillos as today a geologist would see it.
Just like he thus may have profited from any possible treasure hidden in the crypt of Rennes-le-Château, Saunière may have tried to sell his “Perillos information”. And that he likely did this – however he acquired the knowledge – is in evidence because he made the model.

Clues?

We know that Saunière had a sense of humour. There are also direct correspondences between the church and his model. As mentioned more than a decade ago, the dimensions of the model and Marie de Nègre’s tombstone match.
De Nègre’s tombstone is infamous for having an “anomalous code” on it, but in truth, the real anomaly is that she was not buried there; it was a fake tombstone, to mask one access to the crypt. A crypt is a collection of tombs, and the model’s primary anomaly also involves one tomb too many: Jesus was buried inside the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Hence, like the cemetery of Rennes-le-Château had one tomb(stone) too many, so does the model, which maps the Perillos region. . Just like de Nègre’s tombstone led into the crypt of Rennes-le-Château, the Tomb of Christ and Joseph of Arimathea are likely to have been connected to the crypt of Perillos. Coincidence, or evidence of Saunière’s thinking?

It is, of course, not hard evidence that Saunière tried to commercialise his knowledge. But evidence that he was trying to sell this information comes from the chronological coincidence that while he was having this model made, he was also in the planning process of a new series of building work, the cost of which would run into millions. Again, the question is as to how he was going to acquire this money, noting that this time, sceptics are unable to claim it would be further “trafficking in masses”, which they claim does explain his initial accumulation of wealth. In the end, the work was never carried out, just like the model was never collected, as Saunière rather unexpectedly died.

It is no doubt a twist of fate or divine irony – or Saunière’s humour coming back to haunt him? – that as the mystery grew, it was said that Saunière’s own grave (in the cemetery, before it was moved to the garden) had a flight of steps leading downwards… into… yes, into what?

Filip Coppens