Strange stones

 

A dating question

Some time ago, our attention was drawn to the presence of two stones, contained engraved letters and numbers, set inside the building, on both sides of the entrance, of the “viewing room”, which once housed the office and library of Saunière.
These stones share a lot in common with other stones, namely three such stones, found on the walls of the church and the presbytery, nearby, in the village of Rennes-le-Château. The problem is not so much that they are “alike”, but that each seems to share a common origin and have been the subject of some modification, such as the stones that we saw in the viewing room.
On first inspection, it is easy to conclude that we are here in front of a series of memorial stones, to commemorate important events in the life of the buildings. Indeed, the stones and the dates for the presbytery correspond to 1725, the year in which (on July 15), significant restoration work was carried out by the administrators of the village. These repairs were completed in 1727, after an extension of work – and the accompanying financial budget – was secured in 1726. We thus see that the two dates, 1725 and 1727, can indeed be found in the walls of the presbytery. Nevertheless, we should not it is out of the ordinary that the commencement of work is commemorated in such a way, without any further comment. At least, some detail is given, incorporating the authority or mecenas that made the work possible. We know there was no sponsor for this work, except the community itself, and in such circumstances, normally only the completion date is incorporated in the fabric of the building. At best, we would read “1725-1727”, commemorating that the works were carried out over a period of two years. But we should not see two separate stones, far removed from one another, each giving one of the above dates.
Where do these stones sit?
They are worked into the southern side of the presbytery, visible from the forecourt (the entrance to the modern museum). The first is above the window on the second floor, close to the entrance; the second is under the edge of the roof, above the main entrance to the building.
The third one is encrusted in the wall of the bell-tower, almost at the very top of the building.

Lettering

The stone of the bell-tower has the following inscriptions:
First line: 1740
Second line: I G
We assume that it is the letter 1 at the beginning of the number “1740”, and not “I740”, which would make it into a capital letter I, followed by the number 740.
The same applies for the two letters below, the I and G, whereby the first could be turned into a Roman letter 1. From a logical perspective, we adhere to 1740 and I G.

The stone above the window of the presbytery:
First line: a cross with equal branches
Second line: 1727
To this, we must add a kind of third level, under the number, which holds a full stop, between 17 and 27 of the number 1727.

The stone under the edge of roof of the presbytery, vertically in line with the entrance door:
First line: 1725
Second line: I G, and a ‘P’ followed by a small triangle.

Let us make some further observations on these three stones. The inscriptions seem to be traced by the same hand, which is logical if one workman completed the work, this over a period of 15 years, from 1725 to 1740. Still, there is no total consistency in the presentation of the dates, such as framing of the inscription.
If it is indeed the work of the same person, leaving his signatory, why then all the variations on the stones themselves? On some, he leaves his initials, on others he does not; the manner in which he composes the entire whole varies greatly as well.
Finally, we should note that the two stones of the presbytery are of a higher quality than the one in the bell-tower.

The stones are all similar in shape; the proportions of height v. length give us 1:2 for those with a frame, and 2:3 for the one that lacks a frame. The latter is, of course, a famous ratio for “beauty”, which a mason could very well have knowledge of.

A cross

Let us, for the moment, leave out the stone of the bell-tower, and focus on those on the walls of the presbytery.
Let us assume that the stone is merely there to commemorate the date of 1727 and the completion of the restoration works. This already is of some intrigue, as the restorations that were done at that time were believed to have involved a wooden structure, not a stone building, which is largely the work of Saunière.
Second observation: why are the stones of the presbytery – the commemoration stones that is – of far better quality, inscription wise, than the one on top of the bell-tower? The church by default is more important then the presbytery, but it seems our stone mason was unaware of this and spent more time and effort on the inscriptions of the presbytery than those of the bell-tower. The “crime” is even worse seeing that the bell-tower’s date is much later, and hence there can be no question of the “higher standards” between the work carried out in 1727 and 1740, but instead of “dropping standards”.
Furthermore, this date is accompanied by a small but elegant cross. This is again remarkable, from the perspective that this presbytery’s dedication carries a cross, but that of the church does not. Yet a church is more sacred building than the presbytery? Surely?
Finally, if we look at the entire construction, once again, our eyes and mind can separate the 1727 into 17 and 27, because of the presence of the cross above and the dot below. As such, it may refer to a date: the 17th and 27th day of the month. That does not lead us anywhere, but the presence of the dot, as executed by the stonemason, is equally enigmatic, as it serves no other purpose than allowing the eye to connect the cross and the dot to connect, thus separating the 17 from the 27.
In short, we can only conclude that the inscription contains a lot of information that does not make any logical sense…

When Ps turn to Rs

Remains the other engraved stone on the southern side of the presbytery. This carries the date 1725, followed by the letters I and G, which is the same “I G” we find on the bell-tower, as well as similar to what appears to be an “1 G” in the wall of the viewing room. Logically, this would be the initial of the workman who carried out the work. But if it is, then at least we should point out that this stonemason is highly non-conform in leaving his signature.
This inscription is the longest of them all: there are 8 inscriptions, two more than its nearest rival (1740IG and +1727.).
This stone not only has 1725 and IG, but also a letter P. First observation: the inscriptions of 1725 and IG are of equal height, but the P is twice as high. It thus seems to indicate that it is much more important, but if it is, for what reason? Finally, there is a small triangle in the right bottom corner. It is obvious that the IG, plus the P and the triangle make a “masonic signature”, but whether it is masonic or Masonic, is a good question…

To find a cross in the wall of a religious building would not raise any questions. But this small triangle, as well as the enigmatic P, has a “message” that escapes us – and we can safely assume that it will escape the majority of people staring at it. Still, it must have meaning, if only for the mason himself.
Furthermore, the triangle seems to turn the P into an R, because of the axis of the triangle. It is a bizarre “mark”…

Engraved stones, and the law of 17

So there are three additional stones with inscriptions, the fourth being that of the viewing room, on which the letters I and G and the date 1738 is written.
In the previous part of this work, we showed that the I and G were different from the other inscriptions. As for the 1738, it was clear that the inscription was done in two instances, rendering 17 and 38.
The four stones seem to have a mutual bond: they are dates, each of which begins with the number 17. To this are added a series of enigmatic inscriptions, such as the P and the triangle, the cross and the dot, and the I G, which seems to be the signature of the hand that sculpted these stones.
- for the viewing room, the 17 seems old, the 38 rough; the I of the IG is furnished with iron.
- for the bell-tower, the date is cut in half, suggesting two sets
- for the first inscription on the presbytery, closest to the church, the 17 is insulated by a small cross and a dot.
- for the final inscription, the 17 seems to be the most normal of all… but then this inscription has the enigmatic P and triangle.

All of this, for sure, could be nothing but chance, but in the affair of Rennes-le-Château, there is such an emphasis on the number 17, that we can only wonder whether we should add these discrepancies to that already long list.

All of these stones were re-used by Saunière in his restorations works, and it seems that the stones of the restoration of the 18th century were reused in his work. Note that Saunière himself chose not to leave any memory of his restoration himself, instead incorporating the “commemoration stones” from the previous works.
But in the case of the viewing room, we note that Saunière built this from “scratch”. The two engraved stones used in this construction thus came from another construction, possibly a ruin that was native to the location of the viewing room itself. Still, Saunière decided to make it appear as if the construction dated back, in that form, to the 18th century, whereas it was entirely his work – even if he rebuilt the viewing room conform to how it previously looked. Still, he takes no “visual credit” for this restoration.
Why not? Why does he hide it? Is he trying to show that he did not touch the church at all? That the way all of these structures looked, was exactly as he found them? Did he try to deflect the attention away from his extensive restoration works? If so, why? Even in the case of the viewing room, he pretends as if nothing is his work… why?

… hints

Before continuing our research, we pondered whether the 17 and the other dates could refer to a day of a certain month, or even of a time. Of course, we look for a famous date, then January 17 comes to mind. But if the other are days, 38 or 40 would be part of a bizarre calendar system…
Still, Saunière played with these stones, and added the one of the viewing room. Was this some type of game for him? A puzzle? Was it somehow like Ariadne’s thread? The analogy is not that bizarre, as Ariadne spun this so that no-one would lose their way in the underworld… and with the presence of a fault line under the village…
If they form part of puzzle, we merely seem to have collated the pieces with which the game needs to be played. Just like Saunière left us his strange “riddle”, like a crossword puzzle, of “sot pecheur”. Later on, we will return to this enigmatic rebus, to search for – and find – some hints between this riddle and the riddle of the inscriptions.

Andre Douzet