More on the Seventh Legion and its place in
the history of Rennes-les-Bains
Part One
INTRODUCTION
Lets cut to the chase. We would not be discussing the idea of the Seventh Legion and Rennes-les-Bains if it were not for Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey. The infamous Priory of Sion duo released pamphlets that made obscure references to the ancient region of Septimania and to the legend that a Great Roman was buried near to Rennes-les-Bains. They then connected this to the enigmatic mystery at Rennes le-Château and Bérenger Saunière. Why? Both Plantard and Chérisey talked about this important burial showing that in this instance at least, they were singing from the same hymn sheet. What is more this legend of the Great Roman has a longer pedigree than that of Rennes le-Château and Bérenger Saunière!
So what did they say?
Firstly Plantard. He reported in a private letter [in a response to some questions put to him by a researcher] that ".....the "secret location" to which you refer is the Roman tomb (50-48 BC) called the Tomb of Gnaius Pompey, which is located in Fangallots at a distance of 1 kilometre 500 metres from my property. It is located between two belfries –those of Rennes-les-Bains and Rennes-le-Château, at 500 metres’ distance from the belfry of Rennes-les-Bains". From this we deduce that Plantard thinks there is a tomb near his property which is Roman in origin and he even supplies us a date - 50-48BC. He calls it the tomb of Gnaius Pompey (ca. 75 BC – April 12, 45 BC), a Roman politician and general from the late Republic (1st century BC). Gnaeus Pompeius [read Pompey?] was the elder son of Pompey the Great (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) by his third wife. Both he and his younger brother Sextus Pompey grew up in the shadow of their father, who had been one of Rome's best generals.
For Chérisey, he had made numerous references to a Great Roman. He did this via many of the pamphlets he wrote and diagrams he designed [see below] and also via his novel CIRCUIT. For example on page 111 of Circuit he writes:
"... the fortress of the king is in the territory of 16 to 18 hectares indicated by the cadastre [map] under the appellation 'rokko negro'. The centre of Rennes and the pierre du pain are this fortress which is found in the sign of Pisces (poisson/fish) - the treasure that is there is multiple in nature, such as precious stones by the Visigoths of the fifth century, gold and manuscripts by the Arabs who deposited [them in?] the tomb of Grand Roman between 711 and 715. I will add that the personality of the great Roman is not absolutely certain, the general thought was that it was Pompey (i.e. this is what Plantard advocated), but there is also... Gerard de Nerval, which would lean rather to the Emperor Nerva. This distinction between the two zones of treasure is both fundamental and related to the work of Saunière, who transferred to the fortress what was in the basement(?), but anyone that hasn't experienced the second will not know the first". [This last sentence has echoes of the Small Parchment and the Secundo Primo idea].
Chérisey makes many references to this tomb of a Great Roman in diagrams he created and one of these is shown below left. The diagram below right is one created by Pierre Plantard.
Lets cut to the chase. We would not be discussing the idea of the Seventh Legion and Rennes-les-Bains if it were not for Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey. The infamous Priory of Sion duo released pamphlets that made obscure references to the ancient region of Septimania and to the legend that a Great Roman was buried near to Rennes-les-Bains. They then connected this to the enigmatic mystery at Rennes le-Château and Bérenger Saunière. Why? Both Plantard and Chérisey talked about this important burial showing that in this instance at least, they were singing from the same hymn sheet. What is more this legend of the Great Roman has a longer pedigree than that of Rennes le-Château and Bérenger Saunière!
So what did they say?
Firstly Plantard. He reported in a private letter [in a response to some questions put to him by a researcher] that ".....the "secret location" to which you refer is the Roman tomb (50-48 BC) called the Tomb of Gnaius Pompey, which is located in Fangallots at a distance of 1 kilometre 500 metres from my property. It is located between two belfries –those of Rennes-les-Bains and Rennes-le-Château, at 500 metres’ distance from the belfry of Rennes-les-Bains". From this we deduce that Plantard thinks there is a tomb near his property which is Roman in origin and he even supplies us a date - 50-48BC. He calls it the tomb of Gnaius Pompey (ca. 75 BC – April 12, 45 BC), a Roman politician and general from the late Republic (1st century BC). Gnaeus Pompeius [read Pompey?] was the elder son of Pompey the Great (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) by his third wife. Both he and his younger brother Sextus Pompey grew up in the shadow of their father, who had been one of Rome's best generals.
For Chérisey, he had made numerous references to a Great Roman. He did this via many of the pamphlets he wrote and diagrams he designed [see below] and also via his novel CIRCUIT. For example on page 111 of Circuit he writes:
"... the fortress of the king is in the territory of 16 to 18 hectares indicated by the cadastre [map] under the appellation 'rokko negro'. The centre of Rennes and the pierre du pain are this fortress which is found in the sign of Pisces (poisson/fish) - the treasure that is there is multiple in nature, such as precious stones by the Visigoths of the fifth century, gold and manuscripts by the Arabs who deposited [them in?] the tomb of Grand Roman between 711 and 715. I will add that the personality of the great Roman is not absolutely certain, the general thought was that it was Pompey (i.e. this is what Plantard advocated), but there is also... Gerard de Nerval, which would lean rather to the Emperor Nerva. This distinction between the two zones of treasure is both fundamental and related to the work of Saunière, who transferred to the fortress what was in the basement(?), but anyone that hasn't experienced the second will not know the first". [This last sentence has echoes of the Small Parchment and the Secundo Primo idea].
Chérisey makes many references to this tomb of a Great Roman in diagrams he created and one of these is shown below left. The diagram below right is one created by Pierre Plantard.
Where have Plantard & Chérisey picked up the idea of a Grand Roman buried near Rennes-les-Bains, and more to the point - why have they associated it with the priest who found 'billions'? Somehow our crafty duo - even though they were following the trail of Bérenger Saunière wouldn't be long in finding the trail of another priest of the area, Henri Boudet. It is from Boudet that Plantard et al must have learned about Abbe Delmas and his manuscript about the archaeological finds at Rennes-les-Bains. From this manuscript they learnt that a tomb had already been reported by Abbé Delmas, in his memoirs of 1709. Abbé Delmas doesn't say how he came by his information. Indeed we don't know if the tomb had already been found by him [or someone else] or whether he was just reporting a local tradition he had heard. For the Curé though, there seemed to be no doubt in his mind that somewhere in the area of Rennes-les-Bains was the grave of an extraordinarily important figure from the Gallo-Roman period. He called it the "grave of the unknown great Roman". He seems to have based this assertion on the work of Catel who had said that "a [certain] stone was at Rennes-les-Bains, in the village church" but Catel does not say how long the 'stone' had been there or how it came to be in the church at Rennes-les-Bains. He wrote; 'And seen in the church of the place mentioned, les Bains de Rennes, an ancient Roman inscription, recovered from ancient foundations near the source, C. POMPEIVS QVARTVS PAM SVO.'
Mentioning that the stone had been 'recovered from ancient foundations near the Source' suggests that Catel might have been referring to one of the many 'sources' so named in the vicinity of Rennes, such as the Source du Cercle, or even the Source Marie or the Fontaine du Cercle - local landmarks at Rennes-les-Bains. This would imply against other assertions [one being that the stone in question was originally removed from the Narbonne area and arrived in the church of Rennes-les-Bains. Although this is reported in an archaeological book of Narbonne, there is no explanation offered about why it was moved from Narbonne, or who moved it or when it was moved etc .... and anyway, it seems to be reported much later than the Catel source].
If we use Boudet as some sort of guide [because he lived in the area for many years, was interested in the area's archaeology and actively sought out its history] it appears that the Source where this Pompeius stone was found might be the Source de Marie/Hotel de la Reine/Bains Doux [which are all sources of a kind!] The Hotel de la Reine turns up in a Priory document known as 'In the Country of the White Queen' because of the amazing finds that have been located there. Boudet makes reference to a pagan temple in this area, one he says the Romans built. It occurs at the very end of his book The True Celtic Language and the Cromleck of Rennes-les-Bains. In the Chapter called: LES ROMAINS ET LA SOURCE THERMALE DE LA REINE [note the mention of a Source in the title] Boudet writes; the true religious meaning of the Cromleck disappears under all the memories. The southern countries of the Redones had long been part of the Province, and the Romans had built a temple in the valley of the Sals, and baths at the source de la Reine. A new village was built on the plateau of Villanova, overlooking the spa's north-east side. The Romans left many traces of their extended stay in the Cromleck, medals and coins of gold, silver and bronze, from the triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus, until the reign of the Emperor Gratian, whole amphorae, broken statues carved in white marble, capitals and bases of columns and carved inscriptions in stone".
Is it conceivable that the many different 'Sources' that abound at Rennes-les-Bains have been confused with each other? For example the Source du Cercle, the Fontaine du Cercle and the source de la Reine through the years have been mixed up? Confused because they all carry a Source? For what Boudet says actually matches what has happened on the ground [i.e. evidence of Roman occupation and a substantial one at that around the Source de la Reine, the valley of the Sals and under the Hotel de la Reine and its courtyard and immediate vicinity etc - which includes the speculation by early archaeologists that the remains might suggest ancient Roman buildings, temples and palaces]. If so then the comments of Boudet certainly reflect the same comments made by Delmas. They equal suggestions that in the valley of the Sals the Romans built a Temple, where archaeologists found, a little below the baths of Rennes, on the right bank of the Sals, the ruins of an old house with mosaic pavements, shards of old pottery and tile's. In the slope opposite the Hotel des Bains de la Reine, there have been found shards of pottery and various forms of crockery, glass perfume bottles, fragments of plaster of apartments, bones of edible animals, oyster shells and other shells. It is in this place that Louis PECH of Narbonne in 1844 guessed the location of a Roman house (left bank of Sals, at the upper entrance to the park), in the ruins of [another?] house, crushed by a boulder, where further bricks were found along with broken glass, animal bones, oyster shells of the Mediterranean, ancient manufacturing nails and a piece of thick greenish glass, similar to those that have been removed from excavations at Pompei. There was speculation that a Temple had been built here [just as Boudet wrote] with some archaeologists such as Mr. ROUZAUD, former president of the Archaeological Survey of Narbonne, attributing the large structures beneath the Hotel de la Reine and a house nearby called Chaluleau to ancient Roman buildings, temples and palaces. In fact on a French forum i found the following quote: "It should also be remembered that in the eighteenth century there was given the name "Valley of the Cross" (Val Crux) to the site of Rennes les Bains, and we [then] understand the special interest that the abbe had in the sign of [the] cross and to the gallows which became 'a' cross - and the locality of Fangallots - whose grounds conceal a Roman necropolis and statues of pagan deities which were exhumed and buried again ..... in the presence of Boudet, in the Chaluleau house at Rennes les Bains". (see HERE)
Perhaps it is not so preposterous to think that near here [the approach area to Rennes-les-Bains] there existed a tomb? We know that Boudet was aware of these discoveries because he is also one of the people cited as having found some artifacts many years later!
Mentioning that the stone had been 'recovered from ancient foundations near the Source' suggests that Catel might have been referring to one of the many 'sources' so named in the vicinity of Rennes, such as the Source du Cercle, or even the Source Marie or the Fontaine du Cercle - local landmarks at Rennes-les-Bains. This would imply against other assertions [one being that the stone in question was originally removed from the Narbonne area and arrived in the church of Rennes-les-Bains. Although this is reported in an archaeological book of Narbonne, there is no explanation offered about why it was moved from Narbonne, or who moved it or when it was moved etc .... and anyway, it seems to be reported much later than the Catel source].
If we use Boudet as some sort of guide [because he lived in the area for many years, was interested in the area's archaeology and actively sought out its history] it appears that the Source where this Pompeius stone was found might be the Source de Marie/Hotel de la Reine/Bains Doux [which are all sources of a kind!] The Hotel de la Reine turns up in a Priory document known as 'In the Country of the White Queen' because of the amazing finds that have been located there. Boudet makes reference to a pagan temple in this area, one he says the Romans built. It occurs at the very end of his book The True Celtic Language and the Cromleck of Rennes-les-Bains. In the Chapter called: LES ROMAINS ET LA SOURCE THERMALE DE LA REINE [note the mention of a Source in the title] Boudet writes; the true religious meaning of the Cromleck disappears under all the memories. The southern countries of the Redones had long been part of the Province, and the Romans had built a temple in the valley of the Sals, and baths at the source de la Reine. A new village was built on the plateau of Villanova, overlooking the spa's north-east side. The Romans left many traces of their extended stay in the Cromleck, medals and coins of gold, silver and bronze, from the triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus, until the reign of the Emperor Gratian, whole amphorae, broken statues carved in white marble, capitals and bases of columns and carved inscriptions in stone".
Is it conceivable that the many different 'Sources' that abound at Rennes-les-Bains have been confused with each other? For example the Source du Cercle, the Fontaine du Cercle and the source de la Reine through the years have been mixed up? Confused because they all carry a Source? For what Boudet says actually matches what has happened on the ground [i.e. evidence of Roman occupation and a substantial one at that around the Source de la Reine, the valley of the Sals and under the Hotel de la Reine and its courtyard and immediate vicinity etc - which includes the speculation by early archaeologists that the remains might suggest ancient Roman buildings, temples and palaces]. If so then the comments of Boudet certainly reflect the same comments made by Delmas. They equal suggestions that in the valley of the Sals the Romans built a Temple, where archaeologists found, a little below the baths of Rennes, on the right bank of the Sals, the ruins of an old house with mosaic pavements, shards of old pottery and tile's. In the slope opposite the Hotel des Bains de la Reine, there have been found shards of pottery and various forms of crockery, glass perfume bottles, fragments of plaster of apartments, bones of edible animals, oyster shells and other shells. It is in this place that Louis PECH of Narbonne in 1844 guessed the location of a Roman house (left bank of Sals, at the upper entrance to the park), in the ruins of [another?] house, crushed by a boulder, where further bricks were found along with broken glass, animal bones, oyster shells of the Mediterranean, ancient manufacturing nails and a piece of thick greenish glass, similar to those that have been removed from excavations at Pompei. There was speculation that a Temple had been built here [just as Boudet wrote] with some archaeologists such as Mr. ROUZAUD, former president of the Archaeological Survey of Narbonne, attributing the large structures beneath the Hotel de la Reine and a house nearby called Chaluleau to ancient Roman buildings, temples and palaces. In fact on a French forum i found the following quote: "It should also be remembered that in the eighteenth century there was given the name "Valley of the Cross" (Val Crux) to the site of Rennes les Bains, and we [then] understand the special interest that the abbe had in the sign of [the] cross and to the gallows which became 'a' cross - and the locality of Fangallots - whose grounds conceal a Roman necropolis and statues of pagan deities which were exhumed and buried again ..... in the presence of Boudet, in the Chaluleau house at Rennes les Bains". (see HERE)
Perhaps it is not so preposterous to think that near here [the approach area to Rennes-les-Bains] there existed a tomb? We know that Boudet was aware of these discoveries because he is also one of the people cited as having found some artifacts many years later!
This is the general area where the archaeological finds discussed in this article were found. Some archaeologists associated these finds by the River Sals, with a Temple, and other substructures that are under the Hotel itself and its courtyard and other areas. This photo was taken around 1940 ..... and shows the approach into the village and the Hotel. On the right you can see the so called Delmas cross - and it is here that became associated with a Grand Roman burial because of the Delmas manuscript. But who put the Cross there? Why do we assume that this is where a tomb of importance would be? Is the tomb inside the mountain behind it, or is the cross a 'marker'? Or is the tomb more likely, as it would seem from the evidence, to be under the road? I am very surprised, given all this evidence, that an official excavation has not been carried out to look for this 'Temple'.
© http://www.renneslesbains.org/renneslesbains/article.php3?id_article=3
Plantard has identified this mysterious tomb of 'Pompey' as being at Fangallots, which is a place found near the old Roman spa town of Rennes-les-Bains and on the top of the mountain slope which leads down to the Spa and Bains Doux. Below is a map showing the area....
Click to set custom HTML
In these maps we can see that the tomb of Pompey that Plantard discusses is - when compared to Boudet's map from La Vrai Langue Celtique (of the same area) - very close to Place de la Brugos, Cap de l'homme and Place de la Coste. Plantard said the site is located "between two belfries –those of Rennes-les-Bains and Rennes-le-Château, at 500 metres’ distance from the belfry of Rennes-les-Bains" (see below)
|
It is also interesting to note that if Boudet is to be believed - then perhaps his Head of the Saviour at the Cap de L'homme did look out on to a pagan Temple? I have not been to the exact area where the 'Head' projected out, but it was, for Boudet, "looking over the valley, over all the dominant Celtic monuments which had lost their teachings". It was said to be "opposite the pagan temple, converted into a Christian church later destroyed by fire". Given that the archaeologists had speculated that in the area of the Hotel de la Reine [below ground] there might be remains of a Roman palace or a Temple [see HERE for the evidence in the Museum at Rennes-les-Bains], this would show that his Head of the Saviour indeed, depending on its orientation etc, was looking over a valley to a pagan Temple would it not? The valley would seem to be the Valley of the Sals and the Celtic monuments must surely be his Cromleck? It is all rather fascinating! [But may be too simplistic as my knowledge of the French language is poor].
The local priest Henri Boudet, born November 16, 1837 at Quillan was appointed priest of Rennes-les-Bains in 1872. For ten years of his life he sspent writing The True Celtic Language and Cromleck Rennes-les-Bains, a book he published in 1886. This strange book is said to carry a code decipherable only by using the method called "The Language of Birds". He died after a long illness on March 30, 1915 at Axat. In his book, Boudet mentions Fangallots. Boudet wrote about the way the ancients dealt with wrong-doers and mentioned 'hanging', saying that;
"....punishment [murder/sacrifice] was usually reserved for criminals, and is written on the Celtic ground - we find the term Fangallots, which is designating land in Rennes-les-Bains, in the steep slope down towards where the spa is built - that of Bain-Doux. Fangallots means
"disappear from the gallows", to faint (Fent) disappear, gallows (galleuce), gallows, gibbet. The descendants of the Tectosages, keeping the Gallic customs, have always used the gallows against criminals, and even today, hanging is the Anglo-Saxons only method practiced for the punishment of criminals sentenced by the courts to the death penalty".
Here we see that Boudet associates Fangallots with Bains Doux .... his whole book is about an imaginary Cromleck which surrounds an important tomb and we could think that Boudet is talking of the same information as Delmas because they seem to be referring to the same general area of Rennes-les-Bains and a tomb of some importance. For Delmas the tomb is of a Grand Roman, for Boudet the tomb is associated with the Resurrection!
The Priory of Sion duo of Plantard and Chérisey obviously knew about this Boudet reference, because to my astonishment, while perusing the Secret Dossiers i came across a statement in the text as follows; "The decoration (to) the setting to the tomb referred to [i.e. the 14th station of the Cross at Rennes-le-Chateau] is ... of the necropolis of Fangallots at Rennes les Bains". The quote was placed next to a picture of Sauniere's 14th station of the Cross in his church at Rennes-le-Chateau. The quote intimates that the art work in this station is there to reflect that of the 'necropolis' at Fangallots and by extension the tomb of Gnaius Pompey and by further extension Boudet's Resurrection tomb which is at the centre of his Cromleck. It is rather provocative, is it not, that the fourteenth station of the Cross in religious iconography is that of the tomb of the historical Jesus Christ figure and that for Plantard and Chérisey it is to be associated with the Grand Roman tomb of Pompey and with Boudet's tomb of the Resurrection?
"....punishment [murder/sacrifice] was usually reserved for criminals, and is written on the Celtic ground - we find the term Fangallots, which is designating land in Rennes-les-Bains, in the steep slope down towards where the spa is built - that of Bain-Doux. Fangallots means
"disappear from the gallows", to faint (Fent) disappear, gallows (galleuce), gallows, gibbet. The descendants of the Tectosages, keeping the Gallic customs, have always used the gallows against criminals, and even today, hanging is the Anglo-Saxons only method practiced for the punishment of criminals sentenced by the courts to the death penalty".
Here we see that Boudet associates Fangallots with Bains Doux .... his whole book is about an imaginary Cromleck which surrounds an important tomb and we could think that Boudet is talking of the same information as Delmas because they seem to be referring to the same general area of Rennes-les-Bains and a tomb of some importance. For Delmas the tomb is of a Grand Roman, for Boudet the tomb is associated with the Resurrection!
The Priory of Sion duo of Plantard and Chérisey obviously knew about this Boudet reference, because to my astonishment, while perusing the Secret Dossiers i came across a statement in the text as follows; "The decoration (to) the setting to the tomb referred to [i.e. the 14th station of the Cross at Rennes-le-Chateau] is ... of the necropolis of Fangallots at Rennes les Bains". The quote was placed next to a picture of Sauniere's 14th station of the Cross in his church at Rennes-le-Chateau. The quote intimates that the art work in this station is there to reflect that of the 'necropolis' at Fangallots and by extension the tomb of Gnaius Pompey and by further extension Boudet's Resurrection tomb which is at the centre of his Cromleck. It is rather provocative, is it not, that the fourteenth station of the Cross in religious iconography is that of the tomb of the historical Jesus Christ figure and that for Plantard and Chérisey it is to be associated with the Grand Roman tomb of Pompey and with Boudet's tomb of the Resurrection?
Plantard and Cherisey and even more so Boudet are quite clearly intimating who this Great Roman is! But even if correct, how could the historical Jesus be correlated with a Grand Roman?
Chérisey writes in his novel CIRCUIT the following speech from the mouth of Critias;
"well, if Sertorius, his rival, is buried in the island of iron, then he [is?] even buried in Rennes, basing the dialogue between the two zero meridians. Defeated by a naulogue - the great Pompey was in Asia Minor and was assassinated at Milet. Milesian philosophers embalmed his body [which] becomes an object of veneration until the Arabs seized the relic, the body was taken to Rennes during the invasion of Languedoc and the body was given an inviolable burial of marble and lead by Roc Negro. The funeral plaque still exists, you can see it at the museum of Perpignan - C. Pompey Quartus DM SVO".
Now here Chérisey is referring to the younger brother of Gnaius Pompey - one Sextus Pompeius - who was caught in Miletus in 35 BC and executed without trial (an illegal act since Sextus was a Roman citizen) by order of Marcus Titius, Antony's minion. His violent death would be one of the weapons used by Octavian against Antony several years later, when the situation between the two reached boiling point. However, the dates do not match. Sertorius could not have been Sextus Pompey's rival as he died in 73BC. If the dates were correct it would make the rival of Sertorius Pompey the Great... i.e the father of Gnaius Pompey and Sextus Pompey! This again seems to illustrate the tactics used in Circuit. There is a juxtaposition and distortion of time and events. In fact this is what Cherisey tells us in the very first chapter of Circuit and that the 'dear readers' objective is to see 'if you are more intelligent than the author' and able to work out the solution by differentiating between these time distortions and juxtapositions to follow the correct 'circuit'!
&
Critias - so back to the tent which we will plant south of the village - on the left bank of the Sals, beyond the cemetery, after the main square and the church. Here stood a pagan temple ... fifteen meters high which was set fire to (by?) Charles Martel in the year 737 during his attempted invasion of Languedoc. Also the statue of Isis that comes with the other relics - a head of Mercury and an arm Jupiter holding a cloth, a hand holding an egg. This information comes from the memories of Abbe Delmas who, having been responsible for a flow of ink, was also responsible for the flow of even more saliva!
&
Charlot - dm
Critias - 'diis manibus' - the writing of Nostradamus DM. ... It is, in a circle of standing stones...... the great monarch with the great Roman under the medusine 'ensigne'. It IS the devil sitting on a throne of stone and the very spot for centuries .... with the motto 'les treize ors de l'arene' (the treasures of Rennes). Finally, it is hidden in the bergere alignment of the three rocks, a black rock, yellowish sharp rock and a white rock corresponding respectively to Melchoir, Balthazar and Gaspard. All, depending on the mood, gives a sobering thought....".
So what can we deduce? We can safely say that Delmas, Boudet, Plantard and Cherisey appear to all be referring to the same tomb. And via Circuit, Cherisey is further associating it with all sorts of symbolism - Nostradamus, the treasure of Rennes ...etc
Chérisey writes in his novel CIRCUIT the following speech from the mouth of Critias;
"well, if Sertorius, his rival, is buried in the island of iron, then he [is?] even buried in Rennes, basing the dialogue between the two zero meridians. Defeated by a naulogue - the great Pompey was in Asia Minor and was assassinated at Milet. Milesian philosophers embalmed his body [which] becomes an object of veneration until the Arabs seized the relic, the body was taken to Rennes during the invasion of Languedoc and the body was given an inviolable burial of marble and lead by Roc Negro. The funeral plaque still exists, you can see it at the museum of Perpignan - C. Pompey Quartus DM SVO".
Now here Chérisey is referring to the younger brother of Gnaius Pompey - one Sextus Pompeius - who was caught in Miletus in 35 BC and executed without trial (an illegal act since Sextus was a Roman citizen) by order of Marcus Titius, Antony's minion. His violent death would be one of the weapons used by Octavian against Antony several years later, when the situation between the two reached boiling point. However, the dates do not match. Sertorius could not have been Sextus Pompey's rival as he died in 73BC. If the dates were correct it would make the rival of Sertorius Pompey the Great... i.e the father of Gnaius Pompey and Sextus Pompey! This again seems to illustrate the tactics used in Circuit. There is a juxtaposition and distortion of time and events. In fact this is what Cherisey tells us in the very first chapter of Circuit and that the 'dear readers' objective is to see 'if you are more intelligent than the author' and able to work out the solution by differentiating between these time distortions and juxtapositions to follow the correct 'circuit'!
&
Critias - so back to the tent which we will plant south of the village - on the left bank of the Sals, beyond the cemetery, after the main square and the church. Here stood a pagan temple ... fifteen meters high which was set fire to (by?) Charles Martel in the year 737 during his attempted invasion of Languedoc. Also the statue of Isis that comes with the other relics - a head of Mercury and an arm Jupiter holding a cloth, a hand holding an egg. This information comes from the memories of Abbe Delmas who, having been responsible for a flow of ink, was also responsible for the flow of even more saliva!
&
Charlot - dm
Critias - 'diis manibus' - the writing of Nostradamus DM. ... It is, in a circle of standing stones...... the great monarch with the great Roman under the medusine 'ensigne'. It IS the devil sitting on a throne of stone and the very spot for centuries .... with the motto 'les treize ors de l'arene' (the treasures of Rennes). Finally, it is hidden in the bergere alignment of the three rocks, a black rock, yellowish sharp rock and a white rock corresponding respectively to Melchoir, Balthazar and Gaspard. All, depending on the mood, gives a sobering thought....".
So what can we deduce? We can safely say that Delmas, Boudet, Plantard and Cherisey appear to all be referring to the same tomb. And via Circuit, Cherisey is further associating it with all sorts of symbolism - Nostradamus, the treasure of Rennes ...etc
Abbé Delmas
The reoccurring manuscript identified by early and late researchers alike into the enigma that is Rennes le-Château is the one written by Father Delmas. Delmas as we have seen above refers to the Great Roman in his manuscript. Delmas himself is also associated with the infamous Delmas Cross (which was a cross said to have existed through the centuries at Rennes-les-Bains, and which was the centre of a recent controversy when an alleged archaeological 'tomb' was found in a mountainside behind where this cross was placed).
According to Delmas the inhabitants of the village of Rennes-les-Bains came from the Roman Seventh Legion. He wrote;
""The tenth Roman colony was called Colonia Decimenorum and was augmented on the orders of Julius Caesar, who called it Colonia Sulla Patena, as evidenced by numerous inscriptions found in Narbonne. The colony which settled in Beziers was drawn from the Seventh Legion and was called Colonia Septimanorum. One was established at Nimes, which was drawn from the legion which went to Egypt to conquer Mark Antony, and because of that, the town of Nimes has a crocodile for its arms. Those who lived at Bains were also drawn from this legion and it is for this reason that there is a great number of medals of this legion [at Rennes-les-Bains] as well as other medallions from Montpellier".
From this simple paragraph i was able to discover some interesting research that could have a bearing on these discussions. And what would you know, it certainly involves the Pompeius family!
See PART TWO