I recently purchased the Kindle edition of this book for 99p. It is a story about ABBÉ SAUNIÈRE. Said to be by Alphonse de Haut-Brun du Bois it was translated by F. Dunnac in 2015. I have never heard of this book before but according to the author Abbe Lucien Frontenac, who was the ecclesiastical lawyer of Sauniere, and Sauniere's true confidante, was able to persuade Sauniere to tell him about the mysterious origins of his money. Abbe Lucien Frontenac later ended up being imprisoned during World War II. As Alphonse de Haut-Brun du Bois was the parish priest of the prison that Frontenac was incarcerated in, and just before the impending death of Frontenac, Frontenac told him the story of Sauniere as he knew it. Below is a quick synopsis of that 'story';
Afterward: On the 31st March 1956 - three soldiers bodies, with aspects of their uniform still intact, were found buried on the domaine of Sauniere!!
What is more, the activities of the Abbé Saunière were undoubtedly eloquent of the sort of stratagems that he was accustomed to using in order to enrich himself...
I have recently become aware of the following information:
"In November 1956 Monsieur Cotte of the Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne asked the membership during its monthly session about the treasure of Rennes-le-Château, that led to an official investigation of the subject matter. Two members conducted on-the-spot research in March 1957 that lasted for one year. René Descadeillas commented on pages 57-58 in Mythologie du Trésor: “They found no evidence anywhere to support the assertion that, down the ages, any individual, family, group or clan could have accumulated a precious treasure-hoard at Rennes and then concealed it in the locality or its environs. What is more, the activities of the Abbé Saunière were undoubtedly eloquent of the sort of stratagems that he was accustomed to using in order to enrich himself. ” [http://priory-of-sion.com/pos/descadeillas.html].
Now this is a very interesting snapshot indicating the state of knowledge as it was at this time in the story of Abbé Saunière. Once again, it gives credence to people thinking there may be some truth to the whispers, and the Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne themselves undertook to investigate. But then when i see the 'there is no evidence' mentioned, and that Abbé Saunière's "activities ... were undoubtedly eloquent of the sort of stratagems that he was accustomed to using in order to enrich himself" i begin to question whether the researchers are just a tiny bit biased or even lazy! Not because i particularly want to believe Saunière found a treasure but because there are strange goings on with Saunière that cannot be explained away - and i never see those researchers in the camp of 'he was a crooked priest selling masses' even address these strange actions. Saussez has amply shown the priest was working to a plan, viz:
"When the bell-ringer, during the renovations [of the church], saw something glinting on top of/or inside an old baluster that the masons had discarded...it turned out to be a glass phial - & inside this glass phial was a parchment. This parchment allowed Sauniere to find the crypt of the Tomb of the Lords & other information too. This find takes place in around 1887.
After this discovery, Sauniere carries out some activities which most certainly is suggestive of him searching for something.
• Beginning in 1891 Sauniere approaches the town council to close off the square in front of the church and cemetery.
• He wants to build religious furniture and lay flower-beds here (however he doesn’t do this til 1894 -1897).
•The Council agrees to his request after public consultation.
• Sauniere then appropriates 500m2 of space in front of the church and cemetery. He controls access to this area for 300 days of the year. Why? To excavate? Sauniere certainly excavates here and in the cemetery.
• Sauniere moves the worship of the Virgin Mary to outside the church. Originally however this was inside the church, & there was an altar to the Virgin not far from the place of the original pulpit. This was referred to by Leuillieux in 1876.
• There are concealed recesses here (Sauniere built these). The staircase built here matches the exact size of the original altar of the Virgin (58cm x 200cm)
• The accounts of the lifting of this altar Saussez thinks is the root of the eyewitness descriptions (‘I saw a pot with shiny glinty objects ..’) of the workers with Sauniere when they raised the slab. They saw the glinting objects under the the stone slab when it was removed. Sauniere says to his workers these are worthless medallions from Lourdes, cementing the connection with the Virgin altar.
• The stone slab raised at this altar marked an entrance passage. Sauniere puts temporary floorboards down here. At the opposite end of the church he builds the Secret Room. Steps down from this second entry passage are later found by Cholet.[courtesy Paul Saussez]
Some 'disbelievers' argue that the story of the parchment found in the glass phial is not legitimate because it appears late and is not contemporary with Sauniere. For example, Sauniere didn't write in his diary 'found a parchment' etc. Some 'disbelievers' also think Corbu invented the whole idea. However, the 'story' of something being found in glass phial comes via family history and stories passed down the family. Village communities are renowned for gossip and knowing everyone else's business. Why is their testimony not acceptable?
Furthermore Sauniere continued with a planned stratagem:
• There was already an entrance on the south side of the Church wall. It was the private entrance used by the Lords of Rennes. It was called the ‘Gate of the Lords’
• Eyewitness accounts of a phial seen in an old baluster had an old parchment in it. This baluster was an architectural feature holding up two arches at the side of the church.
• Saussez: this paper most certainly the work of Bigou. Revealed the tomb of the Lords?
• Parish register found among the papers of the late Sauniere which referred to this tomb of the Lords.
• Discovery of a tomb on 21/9/1891 - does it relate to this tomb of the Lords? [The discovery seems to culminate at the end of all the actions of controlling access to the church and cemetery and after he had been digging around in the cemetery and church etc]. Sauniere then leaves for a retreat, sees various other priests, returns from retreat and after a visit from 4 unknown colleagues begins new work with new Masons. One of those Sauniere consulted was Carriere (a doctor from Limoux) who’s cousin was Abbe Lassere of Alet, and who was personal doctor of Count Chambord. The donation of 3000 gold francs from Chambord went through Carriere. Others he consulted were Gelis and Cros. [information courtesy Paul Saussez].
Some French researchers have speculated that the 'discovery of a tombeau' diary entry might refer to, in ecclesiastical terms, the sepulchrum of the altar stone. In our common language 'sepulchre/sepulchrum' denotes a tomb, grave or burial place. In ecclesiastical terms it refers to: a small square or oblong chamber in the body of the altar, in which are placed, according to the "Pontificale Romanum" (De Eccles. Consecratione) the relics of two canonized martyrs although the Cong. Sac. Rit. (16 February, 1906) decided that if the relic of only one martyr is placed in it the consecration is valid, to these may be properly added the relics of other saints, especially of those in whose honour the church of the altar is consecrated. These relics must be actual portions of the saints' bodies, not simply of their garments or of other objects which they may have used or touched; the relics must, moreover be authenticated. If the altar is a fixed or immovable altar, the relics are placed in a reliquary of lead, silver, or gold, which should be large enough to contain, besides the relics, three grains of incense and a small piece of parchment on which is written an attest of the consecration. This parchment is usually enclosed in a crystal vessel or small vial, to prevent its decomposition. [[Written by A.J. Schulte. Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907.]
Now one can see how the definitions above echo, in 1891, Sauniere finding a tombeau. What is confusing however is that the altars [whether the stone pillar of the main altar or the wooden balluster [both of which were said to contain parchments] with sepulchrums were found much earlier. The first finds took place in around 1886/87 when moving the altar. To perform this work Sauniere had appealed to the contractor Elijah BOT - assisted by his apprentice Pibouleau. They lifted the stone and noticed that one of the supporting pillars was hollow and filled with ferns, inside there was 2 or 3 wooden rolls containing scrolls. Elie BOT later declared that "these documents were pretty much [il]legible and that in any case they do not relate to money". There was the pulpit supported by a wooden baluster and during the repairs all of the pieces of old wood which made up the furniture had been thrown to the ground unceremoniously ...... the bell ringer Antoine CAPTIER saw something shining in the darkness, he came near and realized that the wooden baluster had a small glass vial housed in a slide - it contained a piece of paper".
It was around 1895 that complaints were filed relating to the curious actions that said Saunière was busy by night moving tombstones in the cemetery. Was he looking for a secondary entrance to a crypt which was within a false grave? He does not spare his efforts to find it.
The timeline suggests that around 1886 or a little later was found the sepulchrum in the altar. This contained parchment and perhaps relics of an unknown martyr or saint. A little later the wooden balluster was found with a glass phial inside. The paper inside this glass phial may have had details of the construction of the church, or information about a burial vault or information about important burials at Rennes. In 1891 Sauniere notes in his diary 'discovery of a tombeau'. This must surely be a tomb/burial or grave. Why? Because if it was a tombeau in the ecclesiastical sense this seems to have been found much much earlier in around 1886/1887. Whatever the tomb was that he found in 1891 - it seems odd that 4 or 5 years later Sauniere is turning up graves in the cemetery and 'discovers' another tomb!
So how come the Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne never mentioned any of this? How come the two members of the Society 'on the spot' found no evidence anywhere to support the assertion that, down the ages, any individual, family, group or clan could have accumulated a precious treasure-hoard at Rennes and then concealed it in the locality or its environs? What were they expecting to find? A big old entry somewhere 'on the spot' [does this mean 'on the spot' at Rennes-le-Chateau?] announcing 'It was here!' - or perhaps they were looking for a flag waving in the wind with a sentence on it - 'try here!'. I say this in jest, only because, as we know, the recent work of Stéphanie Buttegeg and her book Les Mines Légendaires Antiques de Rennes-les-Bains asserts that there was some strange machinations in the mines under Roc Negre - not far from Rennes and its environs which she believes conceals more than just seams of copper, and that most certainly families related to the Rennes-le-Chateau story tried to stop people accessing these mines. She says; ".... on the Blanchefort mountain near Roc Negro - under the boulder of the watchman [Veilleur] is to be found another very old mine. This is the most important [one] to our knowledge on this mountain and it also appears to be so [for others] as it appears recurrently in the archives of the fleury-dubosc folder. However, it is not a gold mine, but copper - as evidenced by the many blue and green stones littering the floor of galleries and the blue colour of its walls. The ancient texts call it the mine of Ivry".
Which families showed an inordinate amount of interest to stop people accessing this mine on their lands? It was families such as the Fleury's and Hautpouls & they were/are central to the mystery of the two Rennes - and so perhaps this constitutes the real 'evidence ... to support the assertion that, down the ages, any individual, family, group or clan could have accumulated a precious treasure-hoard at Rennes and then concealed it in the locality or its environs?
I'm not saying this to be pedantic. I'm just asking what kind of research the Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne carried out. Why did they not find this information? Because if they had they might have come to a slightly different conclusion? Even Plantard had accessed these archives and developed a theme of Dubosc accessing a mysterious place under Roc Negre and combined this with knowledge he already had. Plantard even uses the measurements from the Dubosc archives on these Fleury/Hautpoul mines to illustrate how far down it is in Roc Negre to get to that mine of importance!
An update on the research of Paul Karren [you can read more about his work HERE]:
Rhedesium: Have you been able to refine the device you call the 681 Armature?
PK: Yes, there have been many refinements since the last interview. Perhaps the most interesting was to discover that the Armature is, in part, what is known as a Greek analemma. Analemmas are described by Vitruvius in his Ten Books on Architecture. Their primary utility is in the design of sundials and solar observatories, such as those found at the cathedral of San Petronio (Bologna, Italy) and the church of Saint Sulpice (Paris.) An analemma graphically describes the obliquity of the earth at a certain latitude and the resulting winter and summer solstices. The analemma described by the 681 Armature is specific to the latitude of Paris, and is quite accurate. I had suspected the possibility of an analemma, but only discovered how it works very recently.
Rhedesium: Have you more information on the 'arcane tradition' of this Armature which you say dates back to the 1640's.?
PK: In the previous interview I mention that we can deduce the armature dates to at least the 1640’s because of its use in the chancel design of Saint Sulpice and reemerges again in 1727 when the Languet de Gergy requested the installation of the gnomon at the church. It goes silent again until Abbe Boudet publishes La Vraie Langue Celtique where he has subtlety hinted at its structure, including precise internal angles.
It is the discovery of Boudet’s understanding of the device that I have found most intriguing because this demonstrates the device had local importance to Rennes-les-Bains…decades before Plantard and his friends showed up on the scene.
Rhedesium: Are you any nearer to the answer of the question we asked last time - why is the Armature so important?
PK: I have my suspicions, but that is all. Recent developments have included many refinements in the mapping scheme proposed by the dossiers. I suspect that whatever is (or was) hidden in environs of Rennes-les-Bains is of primary importance. I have a few ideas about what that might be. I strongly suspect it is a former Roman Mithraeum, discovered by later inhabitants and then converted for other uses, perhaps for the storage of artifacts, documents, or human remains. I have no idea if there is still anything there. One thought is that whatever was there may have been moved to Saint Sulpice.
Rhedesium: Have you refined the role of the 1960's Priory of Sion?
PK: It appears to me that the 1960’s Priory was likely a front for the real tradition, whatever that tradition was (Rosicrucian, Martinist, Masonic, etc.) As for a centuries old Priory, I have no evidence of its continued existence. Perhaps the purpose of the 1960’s Priory was specifically to release the information hidden in the Parchments and other files of the dossiers. They did this cryptically, and hid those truths within a good deal of misdirection, but once the authentic threads are teased out, they are evident, and sophisticated in a way not previously suspected.
Rhedesium: Have you been able to elaborate on what you believe Henri Boudet's role may be?
PK: I have mentioned that Boudet was aware of the Armature and the mapping scheme later hinted at in the dossiers. He describes elements of it in La Vraie Langue Celtique, albeit cryptically. His map provides the most solid evidence, but there are textual clues too. Therefore, we know that Boudet knew of the hidden location. He seems to suggest it is associated with an important burial and even associates it with resurrection, whatever he meant by that.
Rhedesium: Have you secured independant valuations of your findings from academics?
PK: Yes, elements have been seen by various academics including three art historians and an expert in solar astronomy. Details will follow when I publish.
Rhedesium: When do you aim to publish now?
PK: While I have written an introduction, completed hundreds of illustrations, and written several chapters I have no definitive timeline for publication. I lead an enormously busy professional life, and can only work on the project bits at a time. I am thinking perhaps mid-summer of 2015, but this will depend on the pace of discovery, which has always been slow.
This sentence appeared in Cherisey's novel Circuit, to be exact, in Chapter Five 'The Pope'. Translated, it means something like: 'the grouper is the fish from which the Merovingians claim [?descent]'. The remark is made by Charlot. I thought to myself what a strange comment to have in his novel. Was it a pun on the word Merou, which stood for the first part of the Merovingian word? Had he associated Merou with MERO-vingian? This, to me, seemed to simple. But perhaps that is all Cherisey meant anyway ...
There are several theories regarding the ancestry of the Merovingians - the most famous being that mentioned by contemporary historians' where the ancestry of Merovee, the eponymous ancestor of the Merovingians includes a Quinataur. The Quinotaur is a creature with origins in French mythology, legend and folklore & in particular, Frankish mythology. However, the Merovingians never talked about their ancestry. The description of the Quinotaur attacking the wife of the Frankish king Chlodio while the two visited a beach came from outside the family's clan. From the union of the Quinataur and Chlodio's wife, the creature sired Merovee, founder of the Merovingian Dynasty.
By a phrase commonly used to refer to it (Bestea Neptuni Quinotauri Similis, or "Beast of Neptune Which Resembles a Quinotaur"), it is speculated that the Quinataur was a divine son and/or emissary of the Roman god Neptune. The Quinotaur is a large fish-like creature, similar to a Hippocampus, but instead with the foreparts of a bull. The creature's bull head also has five horns--two horns in the normal position, and three horns forming a sort of trident in the middle of its forehead. Most interesting of all, the Quinotaur is a son and/or divine emissary of the Roman god Neptune, thus giving it and its descendants favour with that deity (though, what this entails in unknown). You can see other ideas on their ancestry HERE.
Of course, from the best seller Holy Blood, Holy Grail the authors suggested that the ancestry of the Merovingians included another God, that of Jesus Christ. I had always thought that this idea only surfaced with Lincoln et al. But knowing how Cherisey likes his word play i investigated the above quote from Circuit, because it raised suspicions with me that Cherisey was claiming the same idea as Lincoln et al. Thus how does one get from MÉROU to Jesus Christ?
The fact that Merou also had a synonymous name of ICHTYOL set alarm bells ringing. Why? You may have already guessed it yourselves! ICHTYOL is the Ancient Greek ἰχθύς (ikhthús, “fish”) + -ol, for a substance that is extracted from shale tar, from the decomposition of fossil fish and sea animals, hence the connection to the root ichtyo-. Ichtyol is prepared by dry distillation of a bituminous mineral containing fossil fishes.
Noun - ichthyol (plural ichthyols)
ἰχθύς = (ikhthū́s) (genitive ἰχθῠ́ος); m, third declension
To continue the ichthys or ichthus word (/ˈɪkθəs/), from the Greek ikhthýs (ἰχθύς, "fish"), is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish. It was used by early Christians as a secret Christian symbol and now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish". Greeks, Romans, and many other pagans used the fish symbol before Christians.
In pagan beliefs, Ichthys was the offspring of the ancient Sea goddess Atargatis [this sea goddess was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia, or Delphine. The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues. Before Christianity adopted the fish symbol, it was known by pagans as "the Great Mother", and "womb". Its link to fertility, birth, and the natural force of women was acknowledged also by the Celts, as well as pagan cultures throughout northern Europe. In certain non-Christian beliefs the fish also has been identified with reincarnation and the life force. Atargatis was the chief goddess of northern Syria in Classical Antiquity. Ctesias also used the name Derceto for her, and the Romans called her Dea Syriae ("Syrian goddess"). Primarily she was a goddess of fertility, but, as the baalat ("mistress") of her city and people, she was also responsible for their protection and well-being. Her chief sanctuary was at Hierapolis, northeast of Aleppo, Syria. She is sometimes described as a mermaid-goddess, due to identification of her with a fish-bodied goddess at Ascalon. Michael Rostovtzeff called her "the great mistress of the North Syrian lands". As Ataratheh, doves and fish were considered sacred by her: doves as an emblem of the Love-Goddess, and fish as symbolic of the fertility and life of the waters. Her consort is usually Hadad. Hadad is a Northwest Semitic storm and rain god, cognate in name and origin with the earlier attested East Semitic Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) god Adad. Hadad was also called "Pidar", "Rapiu", "Baal-Zephon", or often simply Baʿal (Lord), but this title was also used for other gods. The bull was the symbolic animal of Hadad. He appeared bearded, often holding a club and thunderbolt while wearing a bull-horned headdress. Hadad was equated with the Indo-European Nasite Hittite storm-god Teshub; the Egyptian god Set; the Greek god Zeus; the Roman god Jupiter, as Jupiter Dolichenus. The word Hadad-rimmon, for which the inferior reading Hadar-rimmon is found in some manuscripts in the phrase "the mourning of (or at) Hadad-rimmon" (Zechariah 12:11), has been a subject of much discussion. According to Jerome and all the older Christian interpreters, the mourning is for something that occurred at a place called Hadad-rimmon (Maximianopolis) in the valley of Megiddo. The event alluded to was generally held to be the death of Josiah (or, as in the Targum, the death of Ahab at the hands of Hadadrimmon). But even before the discovery of the Ugaritic texts some suspected that Hadad-rimmon might be a Dying-and-rising god like Adonis or Tammuz, perhaps even the same as Tammuz, and the allusion could then be to mournings for Hadad such as those which usually accompanied the Adonis festivals. (Hitzig on Zechariah 12:2, Isaiah 17:8; Movers, Phonizier, 1.196]. It is interesting that all these words lead back to some association with the sea just as the Quinataur is.
The symbolic meaning of the ichthys word of course is as follows:
ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthus) is an backronym/acrostic for "Ίησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ", (Iēsous Christos, Theou Yios, Sōtēr), which translates into English as "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".
So from a simple word, Merou, mentioned by Cherisey, we have delved into Frankish mythology and other mythology of Gods and Goddesses and ended up with Cherisey saying, really, that the Merovingians claimed descent from the god, Jesus Christ!
Welcome to the blog of Rhedesium
My name is Sandy Hamblett, inspired and passionate researcher of the mysteries at Rennes-les-Bains.