Saunière’s model… and its twin

 

In the beginning…

was apparently the word… or perhaps a letter? By now, most enthusiasts of the Rennes-le-Château mystery are aware of the existence of what has come to be known as “Saunière’s model” – a plaster depiction of a landscape, ordered by Saunière late in life. When its existence was publically unveiled in 1995, it quickly became a topic of hotly contested debate, stirring up emotions from extreme exhilaration to outright condemnation. It is nothing new and typifies how emotionally the subject of Rennes-le-Château is, especially to those who claim to “analyse” and “rationalise”, but who foremost “emotionalise” anything new.
Since 1995, many new elements have been added to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, some of them pure theory or speculation, others new material. Having experienced first-hand what it means to introduce – or try to introduce – a new dimension to a mystery, we often know what is in stall for those who think they can bring about change. Indeed, the mystery of Rennes-le-Château is like a true science, with its own paradigms, whereby the tenors desperately try to maintain the paradigm, knowing that any upset in “the Force” might make their position as tenor topple like so many statues at the time of a revolution: falling on the ground, in pieces, shattered. As much as people profess to want to “prove” the theory, fact is that most shoot without proper warning at anything new that might shed further insight to the enigma.

Recap

But let us talk about the model. We know that the object was commissioned shortly before Saunière’s death in January 1917, though, of course, he would have ordered it sooner, if he had known when he would trade in this reality for another. But fortunately for us – i.e. those open to new ideas – he did die when he did, and hence, almost a century later, we now have some insights as to what this enigmatic priest was up to, at least in the latter stages of his life.
Why did he commission the model? We know some details, but not all. We know he was passing on knowledge of a location – near Perillos – but whether he did this of his own free will, or whether he was told to do so, is unknown. We also don’t know whether he had found an “heir” to his secret, to whom he was going to pass on his knowledge, or whether he was going to sell his knowledge for hard cash. Judging from what happened at the same time as when he was having the model made, it appears that hard cash was the likelier option. Then again, both are not mutually exclusive, so… In the latter case, the model was both his testament, as well as a cheque, so that Marie Denarnaud would want for nothing once he was no longer there. Alas, we know that our good priest failed to secure a financially secure future for her. Fortunately, she could rely on some of their former friends, on the occasions that money was particularly tight.
We know that people new to the mystery often ask why he made the model; rather than invent scenarios and promote them as facts, we initially state we do not know, and only later, once our audience has shown signs of maturity in the debate, run through some of the possible scenarios.

In general, the logical scenario is that the model was an instrument to pass on a certain type of knowledge of a landscape. The final model would have been made in bronze, not plaster, and though people could be standing in front of it, nothing much would give away that this is a peculiar artefact, save for certain inconsistencies, like a separate Tomb of Christ and Joseph of Arimathea, which in the Bible is but one. Only for experts will it become apparent that this is not the landscape of Jerusalem, and when finally making an inverse of the model, is it clear that the “key” to decode this landscape is in the bulge, like the navel of a pregnant woman, which is a unique geological feature: the Roc Roudoun, which identifies the landscape as that of Perillos. This allows the seeker to come to a firm point in space, from where to begin his search for the two tombs. That it can be done as such, is clear, as we have done it.

A controversial collection

At the time, and now, we were fully aware that we would be seen – by those outside the field of Rennes-le-Château enthusiasts – as just another person who claimed to know where “the” treasure was located. Alas, half a century of interest into the enigma of Saunière, from the time of Noël Corbu onwards, had destroyed all credibility for anyone who would claim to know something about where the “real secret” of Rennes was buried. We hence knew it was going to be a long struggle, and one that should not focus on the story of Saunière or Rennes-le-Château, as we knew that this circus would continue ad infinitum, and does so, to this very day.
Fortunately, our location was nowhere near Rennes-le-Château itself, which meant that we didn’t have to harass the local authorities. Our “mission” was to show that the case for Perillos stood without a single reference to Saunière: in short, that we could argue the importance of these two locations without a single reference to Saunière. To take him out of the equation, or at least reduce him to a footnote. Furthermore, that in doing so, we could show that we were not madmen, obsessed with sacred geography or mapping paintings or models onto landscapes.
Somehow, we managed to evade those pitfalls, as after a while, we were contacted by state and professional archaeologists – including some of prominent notoriety – who said that at first, they had laughed, for here seemed to be another mad treasure theory, but that over time, the laughing stopped, and that they were independently able to verify the claims we made. Today, they no longer laugh, but they are challenged by the fact that, indeed, this is never going to be a normal archaeological excavation, not only because of the links with “the mystery”, but specifically because we have been able to show that this location near Perillos has been a matter of national if not international importance for political powers, this for a period of at least 700 years.
Despite all of this, the model continues to enthral some, and especially those that cherish our enigmatic priest. Some also realise that it is a visual treasure map, which will lead to “ground zero”. However important the Perillos family, Dali, Cassini or Malraux can be, it was indeed Saunière who visually mapped the land of ground zero; it makes the mystery of Perillos “touchable”, “visible” – legible – even if you have to do it through inversion. And hence, after several years of not devoting much time to the model, we return to it.

Twins?

For many, the model has never become of secondary importance and despite all the other avenues of research we opened, the model never lost its emotional position in our hearts either. And we never stopped researching it either, for even though we knew we had to prove this “thing” without involving Saunière, of course, in reality Saunière was part of a line of seekers that had gone before us, and we wanted to know all there was possibly to know about Saunière.
At this stage, we can introduce some of the new elements involving this model. For example, that there is more than one model. Indeed, the sceptics will argue that this is what they have always claimed: that this model was one of a line of models that had been produced and that there was nothing at all unusual about finding more than one model. But that is not what we are saying. For one, these sceptics argue that such a model exists in a Franciscan museum in Jerusalem; and when we sent Israeli researchers into the museum, we did learn that indeed, they have several models, but none like “Saunière’s model”: not on display, not somewhere else in the museum; they had a model of what the Tomb would have looked like, but this was a very detailed model, including the stone that can be rolled away, etc.

Since the recovery of “Saunière’s model”, two other – similar or identical – models were said to be in existence, at least of which we knew or were told. We were able to locate one, and acquire the second. These models come from the same foundry, and were taken from there before we identified this foundry as the maker of these models – i.e. shortly after we acquired “Saunière’s model”. There is nothing special about this; we ourselves did not acquire Saunière’s model from the foundry directly, but from a middleman who had heard how we were looking for all types of antiquities, of which this was just one. Just like today there are people who have not read “The Da Vinci Code”, in France, there are people – quite a lot – who have never heard of Saunière, which is furthermore quite a common name – and hence why our seller never put two and two together when he sold us the model for a very cheap price – but then it was nothing more than a plaster landscape, unwanted for decades, sitting on the shelves of a company that had stopped trading.
When we came across one of the other two models from this foundry, we were fortunately backed by “investors”, and thus, were able to acquire it. Interestingly, the other model, which were able to locate but not acquire, had gone to Spain, many years before we knew of its existence, and likely at the moment when the foundry closed its doors and sold its stock and miscellaneous items, of which these models were part. As to the other model we were able to acquire: that was located with a nuns-only religious community, who were able to part with it, in return, of course, for a small donation to a good cause.

Details?

Apart from the environment in which one model was located, we know little about it. We do know a bit more about the other one, residing as it did in the “religious community of Lyon”. The model is almost a perfect twin, apart from a number of differences in the text written on top… and at the bottom.
Unlike “Saunière’s Model” – which we will perhaps now need to refer to as “Model 1”, this model had not aged well. It too was made from plaster, but it had apparently fallen at least once, and had then been glued back together – not brilliantly executed workmanship, if we may say so. Certain sections were furthermore missing, thus leaving gaping holes. Today, its new owner has finished his restoration work, and has said that, all going well, we will be able, at some point in the future, to take some photographs of the finished article.

We need to add that the nuns who had the model in their possession, were incapable of remembering where this model came from, or how it came in their possession; why they had acquired it – i.e. for what purpose – was also an enigma. Let us note that at no point did they use, or even consider using, this model as a teaching aid to help children visualise the Scriptures, as some sceptics have argued has been the true purpose of these models. In short, someone seems to have b(r)ought it, then stored it, forgot about it, until we retraced it, and bought it.

An impossible aid

Despite what critics argue, it is impossible – simply impossible – that this was a teaching aid. For one, if it was, why would Saunière have one made for him that was special from all the rest? Why make one in bronze? Why, specifically, incorporate a tremendous mistake, by mislabelling the Tombs of Christ and Joseph of Arimathea? Why incorporate some parts from the Passion, but not all? As a teaching tool, it would not be logical, as when a teacher was telling the story, the students would half of the time query them why that detail was incorporated, and others not. Furthermore, geographically, it does not conform to the reality of Jerusalem, so if this was a teaching tool, it was obviously for an advance course in disinformation – not information on the Holy Land.
In short, when some of our critics argue that this model was part of an order of 130 such models, we can only laugh; even if their claim is based on evidence – which they have never been made public, if it exists – then the most logical conclusion would be that they have totally mismatched their evidence of “an order” with this specific order, placed with a specific foundry. Of course, foundries have more than one order; if the foundry only ever would have one order on their books, namely that of Saunière, it would not have survived for long.
But never let evidence stop a sceptic from expressing his ill-thought out theories! Furthermore, whereas these sceptics tell us that there were 130 such models, they have had a decade to trace down at least one… instead, they have none. Oh, where, religious institutions of France, are your 130 models of the landscape of Jerusalem? Where are the memories of those no doubt thousands of children who allegedly “saw” this model during their catechism lessons? Has Catholic France suffered from a collective state of amnesia? The answer can only be yes, for there are no such memories, and no such models anywhere.

Leaks

Of course, some of those claiming “fraud” were those who said that they needed to see all the evidence, for only then would they be able to provide a thorough judgment of what we had to offer. We quite frankly refused at first, first of all because we knew it was a ploy, and secondly because we knew that by revealing certain things too quickly, the entire project would become a total failure.
Still, some people at first seemed genuine, willing to help, but as time went on, it became quite often clear they were wolfs, pretending to be sheep. One such person was able to lay their hands on the original model, and then broke all of his promises. Another person resorted to “we will fix this for you”, only to later confess he had made a copy of a copy of the model for himself. If it hadn’t been so sad – friends turning out to be enemies – we would have laughed, for they had convinced themselves that they could do this all by themselves; if they just had the model, they had all the means to find “ground zero”. That, in theory, is true; but so far, reality has shown that despite, in one case five, in the other two, years, they have not been able to do what I did in three: reach ground zero. Yet, at first, both of them seemed to believe “they” could do things much faster – even I was convinced that their monetary advantages could buy them things I could never even dream of; but they were the proverbial fool, and despite admonishments that men like Fouquet had failed – and not through lack of money! – they thought they were worthy. Perhaps they are, but so far, they have not been able to prove it.

Either way, both knew that I sat on certain “things”, including certain letters that had come along with the model. These letters were in theory non-essential for finding ground zero, but they are a type of catalyst: from an arduous trek in and around Perillos, this additional information expedites things and makes it a lot easier to reach ground zero, as well as achieve a greater understanding of the framework in which Saunière was working, who else might have been involved, etc.

Letters

Though two “treasure hunters” have copies of the model, both knew that the correspondence that came with the model would never be shared with them – despite attempts to try and acquire them. These are letters between Saunière and the foundry, detailing the execution of the model, asking for changes, additions, corrections, etc. Amongst these are a number of drawings that Saunière felt were required for a successful completion of the job in hand.
Again, these letters are not vital, but they were upgraded as such by “the Rennes community” as some were in the handwriting of Saunière. At the time, in 1995, we asked graphicological experts how many lines of texts they required to authenticate handwriting as genuine; the answer was ten. So we published ten lines. No-one ever came back and said these ten lines were frauds; all we heard from some corners was that it was “not enough” – despite scientists claiming it was! – and that they needed to see more. The reason is simple: they wanted to see what else was in these letters. We do understand these researchers, and we would like to see inside their kitchen cabinets too, but we would ask them directly, rather than resort to pretexts, which we do not grant as they are not genuine.

The best evidence of these letters is that they prove that is indeed “Bérenger Saunière – Prêtre” that places the order, and that Saunière is very specific about some details – overly so if he was merely placing an order for a teaching tool.

A discrete charm

At this late stage in his life, Saunière was a tormented soul, a man who had fought the bishop for several years, and though officially vindicated, was not reinstated; Saunière did not seem to care too much, his mind elsewhere – perhaps on finishing this model. Boudet had died and Saunière was an old man – even though only in his early sixties.
In his letters to the foundry, we nevertheless see something of the “real” Saunière. There is no reason why he can’t be the person he was with this firm: he is placing an order and it is all business. Furthermore, everything between him and the firm will be by correspondence; there is never any face-to-face meeting.
It is likely that Saunière chose this company for that very reason: it offered him a certain amount of discretion: they did not know who he was, and they were largely unknown outside of their own proper region – suggesting already that Saunière must have made some enquiries to find them, or perhaps they were recommended to him? The foundry was known in the Provence, but totally unknown beyond Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. Furthermore, though somewhat bizarre, the request to create such an artefact was not totally out of the ordinary. It had all the appearances of a religious order, done for a priest who was still totally unknown, living elsewhere. Everyone who runs a company knows that on occasion, you will get a few “mad requests”, but you do them nevertheless, often very discretely, as you don’t want people to know. But Saunière’s request does not even fit in the category of “mad” – just “somewhat bizarre”; “niche” is perhaps the best word.

Letters – take two

But let us return to the letters that accompany the model. We note that they were in an envelope, glued to the bottom of the model. It contained a number of documents that were part of the order, as well as certain carbon copies of the replies the foundry sent back to Saunière. Again, there is little of specific interest. The first one is a confirmation of the amount paid by Saunière – noting that Saunière paid in full before work commenced. The second reply is a confirmation letter of the modifications desired by Saunière. It is the latter that would be returned with the mention “DECEDE” – deceased – stamped in red, and informing the foundry that Saunière had died. It meant that all the work stopped, and was placed in their archives. It is clear that the foundry would have been happy with this, as they had been paid, but would never have to execute the work in its final format. And this may also explain why the model in its unfinished format was stored, rather than thrown away: there was a possibility that someone might come, and demand to complete the work. Even though Saunière was dead, and priests normally did not have children, they did have family and heirs, if they had worldly possessions. And those might demand that the work was carried out according to Saunière’s wishes. So just throwing it all away, was not a safe option for the foundry.

Though these letters do explain something, it is not much. But there is one letter, from Saunière, that is of interest, and does lead us somewhere. This is the letter in question:

We note that the most important aspect of this letter is that Saunière asks that “the other model” is given to one of his colleagues, whose details – i.e. his address – he has given in a previous communication.
Indeed, what it tells us, is that from the beginning, Saunière was thinking of having two models made, one of which was going to a colleague priest who Saunière had identified himself.

As time goes by…

So we know that two models in preparation were put in storage; and we have also seen a third, which we know is less-finely executed than the other two, even though all the necessary ingredients are all there. Either way, the plaster model used in preparation should not concern the foundry, as it is merely an aid in creating the finished product, which is what Saunière was paying for. If Saunière hadn’t passed away, the models might indeed have been thrown away, or stored, in case Saunière – or any other client – might wish to make more copies in the future.
So, we have three models, all in plaster, and all obviously “stages” before the execution of the bronze artefact. One ended up in our hands; a second in the hands of a group of Spanish researchers. A third model was retained by a religious congregation in the Lyon region. The latter was in bad shape, perhaps because it lacked a wooden framework, so that the plaster cast was unprotected and hence much more likely to break if it fell or was knocked over. With this model, the base is much shorter, finished in a rough manner and ends at the lowest part of the landscape – in short, it is clearly a first attempt to model just the landscape, without adding extra height to it – as per the instructions for the final model. It is therefore no doubt this model that served as the first run, before two models were made that would serve as the “model” for the final bronze product. Hence why Saunière writes this letter: on this second round of “corrections”, he wants to make a few further changes, thus requiring yet another “proof stage” – hence why he asks whether they can do this for the agreed price, or whether they require more money.

In summary…

So we are confronted with the fact that two models were to be made, one for Saunière and the other for a colleague; each model has minor differences, but, in general, can be said to be “identical”. But as there are minor differences, there is a need for two “matrices”. As mentioned, the third model is a “first attempt” – and though we assume at present that this third model functioned as the basis for model “one and two”, it is possible that there was in origin a fourth; i.e. that there were two models in the first proof stage, rather than one. We do not know, but it seems, given what we know, unlikely.
Indeed, how the first – “most primitive” – model ended up in a religious community, or the second – almost a twin model of Saunière’s – in Spain, is subject to further questions. Perhaps the priest named above had other letters, so that his bronze model was completed, or perhaps he was able to lay his hands on a plaster cast of his? We only have part of the correspondence, and hence, more than a decade after the acquisition of Saunière’s model, we know more, but not all. Perhaps Saunière even asked that the first proof stage model was specifically given to this religious community? We do not know.
The most interesting aspect of this enigma is how the Spanish group was able to secure a copy of the model before us. The man who sold “our model” to us, was firm: when he bought the remaining stock from the foundry (which included more than just this model), what he was selling to us, was the only model of that nature that was in there. And hence, it is clear that the “Spanish connection” seems to have entered into the foundry years ago – and that we are hence not the only ones on this quest – not even the first.

When Spain takes the lead

Indeed, in recent years, it has become clear that it is not only in the search for the model that Spain has been well ahead of France. There is the Gélis document; there is the Coumesourde stone; there is the stone from the River of Colours; and of course there is the story of Patrice Chaplin and the La Sanch connection. And let us note that this group is made up from religious leaders, people of local importance and/or belonging to the Order of Malta, another Templar movement, and a third that claims to be – and this since the 17th century, as attested by documents they have from that time – the “real” Priory of Sion.
As a genuine secret society befits, they do not search the limelight, nor do they scream their existence from the rooftops. But they do reveal their presence when and where appropriate. Let us therefore note – once again – that whatever the Priory of Sion pretended to be in France, that it was clear that it did not go down well in Spain. Indeed, the rivalry between Spain and Malraux, between Plantard who late in life was trying to make inroads in Spain, etc., all suggest that whatever France was trying to do, seriously annoyed the Spanish – whether on purpose, or by accident.
And it is clear that this “Spanish presence” is visibly present when it comes to the story of Rennes-le-Château, Perillos or Berenger Saunière, and is in the possession of certain elements that we are still lacking. This Spanish dimension might seem odd for those who approach the mystery from the angle of Rennes-le-Château or Saunière. But we keep telling people this is a mystery of Perillos – of Aragon. It was never the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, but only of Saunière, and it became the mystery of Rennes-le-Château because it was felt that Saunière discovered something local. In truth, it was a much bigger mystery, and Saunière was either injected, or injected himself, into it. Hence, why it is normal to find this Spanish connection, and hence why we were not at all surprised when the likes of Patrice Chaplin argued for a Spanish connection. Let us also note that this Spanish connection is always present in “hardcore material” (i.e. Gélis), whether it are his notebooks, or the story of Patrice Chaplin.

Finally, to complete this section, let us note that we have removed certain details from this letter, i.e. its date, the name of the second priest and where he lived. We have done so, because these provide active lines of enquiries; they are blacked out in the same way that certain declassified documents are often censored: to protect certain lines of enquiry and people. For any sceptic or critic who is upset by this: let us note that for a decade, we “know” you think the model is nothing but our flight of fancy, so you should not be too upset about this. We know your position, and so be it.

André Douzet, with Filip Coppens
We would like to thank "Pancho Villa” and our other Spanish and Catalan correspondents for their assistance over the years.