The “inspired garden” Part 2: Jesus, the divine gardener

 

Not another pentagram?

Ever since the announcement of the “existence” of a pentagram in Rennes-le-Château, all types of lines and circles have been drawn into this and other landscapes. Amidst this swamp of sacred geometry, there is one often overlooked pentagram – and the only one, in our opinion, that needs to be studied.
It is a “real pentagram”, in the sense that each of its five points is clearly identified (already a rarity for many of the other fanciful pentagrams) and incorporates key ingredients of the mystery – rather than items that have been “added” to the enigma by the proponents of the new theory. Furthermore, its scale, rather than miles long and to an exactness that would require the intervention of extra-terrestrial beings, as well as making sure their “mapping software” reports similarly to that of the French IGN millennia later, this pentagram is small and within the bailiwick of a person like… Saunière.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The pentagram was pointed out by Guy Patton. All points of this pentagram can be found within the church and the garden in front of it. All points are key ingredients in the enigma:
- the Visigothic pillar in the garden;
- the fountain in the garden, in front of the cemetery’s entrance;
- the confessional in the church;
- an alcove next to the pulpit… on the other side of the wall where the Marie de Nègre tombstone was located.
- Point five might seem to be “nothing”, falling as it does on the side of the triangular garden wall. But let us note that this triangle’s side (wall) forms part of the pentagram. That cannot be coincidence either.

The person responsible for creating this pentagram is and can only be Saunière. That he did this unknowingly, is possible, but unlikely. And if by coincidence, than it is clear that he was using further “geometrical conventions” on a larger framework, whereby the “details” just “happen” to fall into place, and create this pentagram.

Revisiting the model correspondences

Though we believe the pentagram was intentional, we now know that there is a larger framework: the garden and Saunière’s model, ordered at the end of his life to convey the location of two sites near Perillos, have the same dimensions.
Let us look into the garden-model overlay in further detail. We note that the dimensions of the garden and the model match perfectly, but most importantly, that the size of the cartouche of the model is a perfect match for the size of the building next to the cemetery’s entrance. This cannot be a coincidence. With this overlay, we also note that the position of the Calvary in the garden corresponds perfectly with the position of the Calvary on the model. This again cannot be a coincidence.
Using inversions, we note that the layout of the paths in the garden and the lines (rivers in Perillos’ landscape – though 99.99% dry most of the time) on the model have the same basic layout – but only if you do it inversely. Of course, we know that the model itself is an inversion of Perillos’ landscape, so….
In the latter inversion, the location of the two tombs roughly corresponds with the location of the grotto in Saunière’s garden. It is an often overlooked location, which according to some researchers, is unfortunate.

Tombs

The dimensions of the model also correspond with the dimensions of the tombstone of Marie de Nègre d’Ables, in the cemetery of the village, and one of the key ingredients of the enigma.
When discussing the date of 1891, or 1681, we note that there is another infamous date: January 17, 1781: 110 years before, when Marie de Nègre d’Ables died and Bigou carved her gravestone – with several errors on it, one of which resulted in her gravestone reading as if she was a whore. Should we see the “difference” of a noble “pure” lady being called a whore – “impure” – as yet another inversion?
More specifically, should we see yet another link to Mary Magdalene, she herself who was claimed by the church to be a whore – in fact, a repentant whore. And should we hence see a further parallel with the words “Penitence! Penitence!” written on the Visigothic pillar, on top of which is a statue of the Virgin Mary, who is of course the inverse of the impure Mary – Mary Magdalene?
In fact, we have three Mary’s: Mary Magdalene in the church; the Virgin Mary in the garden; Marie de Nègre d’Ables d’Hautpoul, the latter who is called both a whore and “noble” on the same gravestone in the churchyard.

Each Mary also “contains” errors: the garden has a Visigothic pillar upside down; the inscription of de Nègre contains several errors; the model has made the key mistake of depicting two separate tombs, that of Christ and Joseph of Arimathea, when in fact, according to the Bible, there is but one.
Of all these elements, should we make a further pun about how this lady’s surname is Hautpoul and the model’s location is near Opoul – noting that in French, both words are pronounced identically?

When 1891 is 16:1

The inscription “MISSION 1891” has puzzled researchers for forty years – at least. But George Sherrill has recently cracked it, specifically after reading part 1 of this series.
Sherrill’s analysis tackled the word mission first. He noted that the word appears only once in the New Testament: Acts 12:25, which is the final passage of chapter 12. “And Barnabas and Saul, returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John who was surnamed Mark.” We note the pun, previously noted, with “mis Sion” – “placed Sion” – Sion being another name for Jerusalem. The above translation uses the word “ministry”, but Sherrill, using the Greek texts, reads “diakonian”, which can also be translated as Mission. To quote Sherrill: “What I found interesting is that the passage ends with the name Mark.”
Everyone has always read the inscription below “Mission” as 1891 – which seems “logical” as 1891 is identified by many as a key year in Saunière’s life – though an analysis of his income has revealed that even earlier, he had access to “anomalous sources of income”. The 8 is furthermore not a typical eight; it is in fact two small circles. Could it be a colon - : ? If so, is it 1:91? Or, when read upside down: 16:1?

The resurrection

Sherrill focused on Mark 16:1, noting that Mark 16:1-8 is the official ending of Mark according to the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaticus. The rest was added later.

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

The divine gardener

The events describe Easter, when Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, to anoint Jesus’ dead body. When she arrives, she finds the stone is rolled away. They see a man, whom other gospel writers describe as Mary Magdalene believing to be a gardener, when in fact, he is the resurrected Jesus. In Mark’s version, the stranger inside the tomb “merely” tells the women Jesus has told to tell the disciples, specifically Peter, that he will see Jesus again in Galilee. As Sherrill points out, the text ends abruptly and it is clear why Christians later wanted to “write a decent ending” to this story, to “explain” things further.

Should we read “Mission 1891” as “Mark 16:1”? “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.”
There are several reasons why the answer is more than likely yes. The church of Rennes-le-Château is dedicated to Mary Magdalene. The Visigothic pillar in the garden on which the inscription is found, is dedicated to the Virgin Mary, assumed to be “the mother of James” (brother of Jesus). The garden in front of the church of Rennes-le-Château would thus, in Saunière’s eyes, have mimicked the garden in which Jesus’ tomb was situated.
And it is here that the correspondence with the model makes perfect and absolute sense: for the model, which has the same dimensions as this garden, depicts one site as “Tomb of Christ”.

“He is not here”

We note that Mark 16:6 refers to Jesus not being “here” and “Galilee”, which corresponds with the enigmatic reference found in Bigou’s notebook, discussed previously when discussing Bigou’s “churchyard riddle”. We quote:
“Bigou comes up with the visual clue of the tomb of Marie d’Hautpoul. But will that be enough? Coincidences do exist, or at least, it will probably not be enough to interest any of his successors. So he needs another “hint”. He needs to write something down. Yes, write something down, for not everyone is able to read. But priests are. Leave it somewhere where only his eventual successors will be interested in and have access too. But not too obvious. A bit like a warning, a key phrase, repeated about a dozen times, as if it was a litany… or even a magical ritual.
And that is exactly where fiction becomes reality: there is such a paper; it is in bad shape, but nevertheless preserved. It seems as if the top two lines are missing from the page. What remains are ten, identical lines: “Jésus de Galilée nest point icy”. “Jesus of Galilee is not here.” The obvious reaction is: of course not. Why would he be? We are in Rennes-le-Château, not the Holy Land! But still, this is Bigou. This is 1790, not 1970, let alone 1997, when the connection between Rennes-le-Château and Jesus becomes far more popular. But it is neither 1917, when Saunière dies. Saunière, who at that time, is working on a model, upon which we find that “Jesus of Galilee is there”, or at least Saunière seems to say so, for on this model, he identifies one site as “Tomb of Christ”. And, indeed, whereas Bigou stated that Jesus was not in Rennes-le-Château, Saunière seems to suggest that Jesus is in Perillos!”

The tomb of Christ

Mark 16 talks about Mary Magdalene finding Jesus’ tomb open, the stone rolled away. Remarkably, when André Douzet discovered the location of what Saunière had identified as “the Tomb of Christ” on the model, near Perillos, he found an intact tomb – with the stone not rolled away, but firmly in place. In 2004, delegates to the Frontier Symposium were able to see photographs of this location; most recently, in March 2007, delegates to the Saunière Society Conference in Newbattle Abbey could see the same images. Again, we have a further “inversion”: an open versus a closed tomb, with the model having the “closed tomb” and the garden of Rennes-le-Château symbolising the open tomb? If so, should we see here a hint as to what the “Primitive State” means – as written on the cartouche of the model? If so, that may be a hint that takes us beyond the confines of this “Calvary garden”.

Filip Coppens

Note: We would like to underline that we do not believe that there is anything hidden in this Calvary Garden of Rennes-le-Château. As such, we deplore any possible damage caused to this garden as a result of those who believe Saunière hid certain things in or under certain parts of it. Instead, we believe that Saunière “hid” his clues out in the open: in the dimensions of the garden, the positioning of the pillars, etc. He used the method of an “open secret”, for “those with eyes to see”. As such, to unravel the mystery, everyone needs to make sure that the garden remains in pristine condition and any “digging” needs to be down with the mind, not a shovel.