The presbytery of Rennes-le-Château Part 4: An incentive to visit the presbytery of Rennes-le-Château

 

 

After the series of articles on the presbytery of Rennes-le-Chateau was concluded and its “secrets” had been revealed, a string of rumours reached us – as is quite usual in these circumstances. Equally usual are the messages that some people “had known this for a long time”, whereas others said that it was all “a forgery”.
For those who claimed to know all along, we can only wonder why they never reported their knowledge. For the others, it is impossible to ever satisfy these people, as every additional piece of evidence will only result in them making further demands. It is an endless story. For the third group of people, let’s give some further weight to the argument; evidence which anyone can validate.

The two types of flooring

Restating the facts

In short, it is argued that the room of the presbytery using the party wall with the church has a passage that leads under the nave of the sanctuary. This opening was on the level of the plate of the chimney. During refurbishments to the presbytery – when it was made into a museum – the passage was opened and we had the time that it indeed led underneath the church. Its route was at the level of the confessional, whose bizarre siting must have been selected for one single purpose: to make sure that no-one could walk around in the church and hear a hollow sound.
This statement was difficult to “take in” by certain people, despite the presentation of photographs that showed the inside of the passageway. But: our entrance is little more than a decade old, and after we left, it was filled in by the masons. Thus, if what we argued was true – that the passage had been opened and then closed at the time of the creation of the museum – indisputable traces should still be visible. If there are no traces, then, indeed, people could call us a liar.
So, to find out whether or not it is true, one only needs to pay an entrance ticket to the presbytery – a small price to pay to learn the truth!

A visit to the museum

Thus let us enter this museum, specifically the room where we said the “alleged” entrance to the passage was located. As it is a museum, it is clear that many things are on display, decorating the walls. This is equally the case with the party wall of the church, the wall of our interest. Specifically, some of the religious clothing used by Saunière is on display.
One specific item of interest on this wall is a stone that projects outwards. It is a part of the chimney, nearby. A closer inspection shows traces of smoke under the coating, between the stones. Thus, a perimeter of dark spots, delimiting the old hearth of the original chimney can be discerned.
When we trail our eyes downward, we see that a section at ground level is made up of perfectly “clean” stones. These stones sit exactly where they should be in our “premise”: it is where the entrance to the passage was – is – located. In short: to this day, any visitor to the presbytery is still able to see where the entrance to the passage is.
We need to thank the masons who worked on the refurbishments of the presbytery for this “imperfect job”; they were unable to remove all indications that a cavity existed there.

A final sound element

Finally, since we are in this room, we will remain here a little in its underworldly aspect. We also mentioned that there was a cellar under the presbytery. There still is, though in this case, “those who know”, do not speak about it. Indeed, a visitor the museum will not find any traces of a possible descent towards a cellar. Except… behind a decoration that is a scene of the life of Berenger Saunière. This is not too difficult. It is enough to look at the ground, to see that the coating of the room consists of two kinds. The first imitates a wood mosaic and is concrete flagstone. It does not give any echo when tapped. The second part, on the left when entering, is made of a real floor out of wood. Here, tapping on its perimeter gives a very heavy echo. Admittedly, a wooden floor is more echo-y, as there is always some air beneath it.
But: if there had not been a “cavity” to preserve under a portion of the old kitchen, then why would they have simply not made one type of floor? Why opt for two types of floor – one that cannot be moved (cement) and one that can easily be removed (wood). Why not all wood, or all cement?
We need to add that it would have been possible to fill in the basement. But if this work was carried out, no only would there be an additional cost, it would also mean that “one” could never again – or at least very difficult – gain access to it.
No-one ever seems to have paid specific attention to the two quite different types of floor coverings, or the differences in sound coming from them, and even less that this difference may betray the location of the cellar. The final question remains why “one” tried to hide it, but that is another story.

André Douzet