A church entrance Part 1: From one world to the next

 

Eyes wide open?

The church of Rennes-le-Château has become the heart of its enigma. It is the place that so typifies the mystery that it is the location one has to visit – much more so than the priest’s next-door villa or the presbytery in which he lived. The interior of the church is normally dark and it is clear that few have entered this building and have received illumination as to what the mystery is truly about. Over the decades, some people have thought the church contained an – if not “the” – answer, but it is clear that – in retrospect – nothing has ever come from studying this church’s interior. And it is unlikely anything ever will.
Most, however, are spared such genuine insight, and hence leave the premises, after having taken the required amount of photographs, to have a lasting memorial of their visit to the quaint village and its mysterious church. The collection will normally including some or all of the following: Asmodeus sitting right next to the entrance. The enigmatic frescoes. The stations of the cross. But few if any of the visitors are interested to learn of the precise whereabouts of where Saunière found access to the crypt. Or realise there is more mystery in stall for them, if ever they were to gain entry into the sacristy or the secret annex. Just the usual photographs will do, thank you.

Clean-up

The thrill of entering the church often means that few if any pay any attention to the entrance itself. Indeed, the porch of the church of Rennes has received some attention, but several details about it remain unknown. We’ve used the term “church of Rennes”, but perhaps it should be described as the “church of Saunière”, for it is clear that what we see today, is the work of this man and he alone.
He was the one who saved the structure from the ruin it was, and rehabilitated it into its present extravaganza. That is, of course, why so many people come here. All of the interior decorations were redone and nothing of the original was preserved. None of the stained glass windows (if any were still in situ), the pulpit, the statues, the confessional, the flooring, etc., remain. We don’t know what the inside looked like before Saunière’s arrival on the scene. The only item that did survive the “clean-up” was a Visigothic pillar, part of the main altar, which he worked into his new garden scheme. Another utensil that survived was the instrument with which the hosts were made, but this can hardly be labelled a veritable part of the church.
We know that part of the pulpit was removed, and was likely held inside the presbytery, before ending up in the possession of the Captier-Corbu family. Whatever happened to the rest of what Saunière had removed, is unknown, though perhaps we need to add straight away that much of it was likely not in the best of conditions – which is of course why Saunière had to commence a very aggressive programme of rehabilitation in the first place. So it is likely that a lot ended up being thrown away, or reused, if only as wood for a stove.

When it comes to the exterior of the church, it is of course a different story. Most of the structure couldn’t really be altered or replaced. What must have happened, was carrying out essential repairs, no doubt to the roof, then to the walls, the windows, the doors, etc. But the basic structure of the exterior largely remained unchanged, though some additions – such as the sacristy and the secret annex – were done.
And it is therefore the exterior of the church where we might have most chance in discovering aspects of the church as it was before Saunière.

Where two worlds meet

The porch of the church is where the mundane and sacred worlds meet. As mentioned, few tourists halt here – except if they find the door to the church locked and the porch of the church is the only thing they can “visit”. But if the door is open, it is largely a quick dash inside, to stop in front of the statue of Asmodeus.
Still, on the porch itself, it is clear that there are numerous religious inscriptions, as well as biblical sentences. The best known inscription, of course, is the statement that “this place is terrible”, written in Latin, above the door. There are emblems, one for Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), as well as for Mgr. Billard (1881-1901) and his predecessor, Mgr. Albert Leuillieux (1875-1881), but these are seldom noticed, if only because their current state of preservation is not the best. There are a number of other dates (1464, 1891, 1892) and a HIS, as well as statue of Mary Magdalene hanging above the entrance. The porch is “crowned” with a triangular fronton. Indeed, the decorations of the porch can be said to have been executed with the same type of “intensity” that one encounters inside: there is so much to look at, that it is impossible to take it all in.

Some information please!

Until about thirty years ago, the church itself looked quite different from what we see today. For one, the outside of the building has been re-pointed. Other maintenance has been carried out – and some should be carried out again. But, most importantly for us right here, is the fact that up until thirty years ago, the emblem of Mgr. Leuillieux, on the right hand side of the door, was still readable. Today, that is hardly the case. And it is clear that over the coming years, this degradation will only continue, until nothing is left – or restoration work is carried out.
The problem here is not vandalism – though there is some vandalism visible around the porch, specifically the 777 graffiti – but the fact that stone degrades over time. In this case, the stone used is simply of insufficient quality, a problem which is made worse by the fact that it is often exposed to both extremely hot and very cold temperatures as the seasons and years pass.

We are definitely not the first to write about the porch. Indeed, it appears as if everyone else has gone before us. But when we read the collected wisdom about this doorway, it is equally clear that some questions have never been asked. Whether these are pivotal questions or not, we leave to the judgment of the reader.
Questions are: do we know – precisely – the dates and timeframes when work was carried out on the porch? If there is an answer to this question, then we would also easily know which artisan was entrusted with working on the porch… but that information too is lacking from the collective records that are in circulation. And we would also like to know from where the blocks of stone came which served as the “raw material” from which the porch was made – and upon which the emblems of the bishops and popes were carved.

There is a huge volume of literature about Rennes-le-Château, whereby some aspects of the construction work is given in almost obscene detail. But when it comes to the porch, we find a general absence of information. Perhaps this is merely the case because researchers assume that there is no mystery attached to the porch, and hence do not include it in their writing? Still, it is a matter of fact that there is a general indifference about this porch, and that it is hardly if ever discussed in the available literature, at least the lower section of the porch.

Threshold

The porch is a threshold, a gateway, from the profane to the sacred. It is also meant to “set the tone”: it has to be both in accordance with the exterior world, as well as be homogenous with the interior world of the church. Of course, in the case of Rennes, it is clear that this threshold was also one of purposefully created shock – not so much by claiming the place is terrible, but by placing Asmodeus right next to the door. Who seriously expects to find a statue of the devil as soon as he enters a church? Though depictions and statues of demons inside churches are rare enough, to find them right next to the door is what makes the church of Rennes truly unique.
At the same time, it is clear that on the porch, Saunière has stamped the “endorsement” of the pope and two bishops very visibly; but once inside, there is no longer any such trace of “reverence”. In fact, the only “constant” from the exterior into the interior, is the presence of Mary Magdalene, which shouldn’t come as a surprise, seeing she was after all the patron saint of the church. Hence, she is not only above the doorway, but also at the main altar, in some of the stained glass windows, as well as a statue along the walls.
Though she is a constant, it is equally clear that the interior of the church has often been seen as a puzzle – whereby some believe Mary Magdalene is not only the only constant, but also the final solution. Either way, it is clear that on the inside of the church, Saunière did display a cunning ability to add a personal touch to the entire setting.

A passage from West to South

As we mentioned in other articles, the original entrance to this church was on the western side, which would make it conform to the traditional layout of churches. In 1632, after the passage of the mercenaries of Henri de Trastamare, the church of St Peter was destroyed and the chapel, originally under the vocation of the Virgin Mary, became the village church, and was placed under the protection of Mary Magdalene. At that time, the local lords commanded the construction of the presbytery, to house the priest, which meant that the western door into the church was blocked off. As everyone must have realised a church without a door wasn’t really useful, a new door had to be created, and it was the southern side that was chosen – which was, indeed, the most logical of options, though in theory the northern side of the building could also have been chosen. But doors in the northern side of a church are never a preference.
It is almost certain – and Alain Féral is the only one who has seriously thought about this issue – that the new door was extremely simple… no doubt too basic for the rather extravagant and grand tastes that Saunière was known for. And hence why he ordered it completely redone.

We note that the creation of this opening must have placed this part of the building under lots of strain, as we note massive reinforcements were added in the 16th century. In his time, Saunière furthermore created the opening towards the new sacristy, as well as the window of St Roch (which is the closest to the porch)… and decorates the porch itself. No wonder therefore that this southern wall has often seen tremendous sheers, and that, today, there is clear evidence of subsistence in this part of the church, as can be observed on the inside of the church, next to the porch.
It is therefore perhaps appropriate to note that the interior of the porch is decorated in the style of the rest of the sanctuary, and we have already noted the presence of a strange demon next to the entrance.
On the outside, as mentioned, is the “number” of Christ: IHS, which is often linked with “In Hoc Signo… Vinces” and is therefore linked with the demon on the other side of the entrance, as the text there reads “By this sign you will conquer him”. Elsewhere, we have noted how Saunière played with a visible and an invisible church (created by the layout of his garden), and it is clear that this “trick” might also apply to these inscriptions. When speaking of inversions, it is therefore interesting that on the inside of the church, we have the devil, and on the outside, the sign of Christ – another mirror: Christ versus the devil. It just seems a strange “mirror” that it is Christ who is on the outside of the Church, and the devil within. It is clear to everyone that one would expect it to be the other way around, but then Saunière was hardly the person who abided by the normal rules and conventions. And though there are a few depictions of Christ on the western and northern wall, it is clear they are offset by the presence of Asmodeus.

Strengths and weaknesses

As mentioned, as sturdy as the entrance pretends to be when viewed from the outside, from the inside, it is clear that on both sides of the door, there are serious structural problems – strains – on the fabric of that wall. Quite alarming problems are visible to every visitor that steps through that door. Still, the extent of this damage cannot alone be explained by the presence of the porch there. It is clear that it has to be a combination of forces, the most likely being instabilities below ground. Noting that there are known to be a number of cavities all under the structure, it is clear that one such cavity is located near the porch itself, and that it has problems with its structural integrity. Of course, there is no real way of knowing, for we know that it was closed off if not many centuries ago, then at least at the time of Saunière. Indeed, in the case of Rennes-le-Château, we know there is a crypt in which no-one has entered in the past 100 years. And it is unclear whether Saunière did any maintenance work on it, or whether he took its structural stability in consideration when he was making changes to the visible part of the church. Either way, today the result is clear: something is going wrong, and in time, someone will have to enter into the “belly of the church”, to find out what’s precisely wrong. And that party may be the first to know whether or not, and what, is hidden inside the crypt.

777, the signature of strange visitors?

We’ve already reported on the presence of the inscription 777 that was placed at the entrance of the porch of Rennes-le-Château and several others in France. To this, we need to add that in recent months, we found another such graffiti, this time on the outside wall of the church of Saint-Vincent de Montréal, south of Carcassonne and not too distant from Rennes-le-Château. We note that here too, the entrance to the church is on the southern side, but, more importantly perhaps, that inside, there is another carving of an Asmodeus. Here too, he is placed to the left of the entrance and this demon too, is weighed down by the holy stoup. However, the demon does not really sit next to the entrance, but about ten metres or so to the left of it. One can therefore wonder whether it is a coincidence that both churches were designed like this – noting Montréal is pretty close to Rennes-le-Chateau – and whether it is a coincidence that both were sprayed with the same graffiti.

An absence of elements?

It is already clear that the porch of the church of Rennes-le-Château has already more importance than the available literature would have us believe. As mentioned, however, we do not seem to have any information who was in charge of this commission. One might assume that it was given to Elie Bot, the builder to whom Saunière assigned most of the building projects. Though Bot was indeed a good mason, it is clear that we have no evidence of him being a stone carver, and it is clear that the carvings on this porch were done by an expert stone carver. Who that person was, however, remains a mystery. Furthermore, we note that it is only here – and nowhere else in or on the church – that stone carving was executed. It therefore seems logical to assume that the stone carver was only brought on for this task, and that it is likely an expert that was known to one or more of the builders, like Elie Bot. But it is also clear that such an intricate carving would have taken some time, but, specifically, would have cost a certain amount of money. A sum of money about which we would expect to have seen some trace in the account books of Saunière – and we all “know” he carefully maintained such information, don’t we? So why is it not there? And with such a “void” of information, we need to ask ourselves whether it is merely an innocent oversight (perhaps it was Bot who paid the carver, rather than Saunière?), or whether we should be suspicious about this omission.

Furthermore, we know that some pieces inside the church came from far-away place. The stones for the Villa were brought from elsewhere and the stone for the porch too must have been sourced somewhere. Interestingly enough, therefore, is the fact that two researchers contacted us, stating that had made a discovery in the vicinity of Rennes. And it would appear that what these researchers had stumbled upon, was a missing dimension of this porch. Or perhaps one should say its “origins”?

continued >>

André Douzet