Arcadia Discussion Zone

I've questioned the age of this old altar on two other threads and the response has been rather muted, so I thought I'd ask a few questions about it.
courtesy of - http://www.renneslechateau.com/anglais/bethanie.htm

Here is another photograph of the same altar, obviously renovated
apologies for not being able to reference its source.

Those with a keen eye will note the altar contains an image of the sacred heart, and as far as I know, the veneration of the sacred heart, in the form of this image, only dates from around the mid to late 18th century. So the altar can't be as old as Cholet asserts in his report, nor was it demolished as he states...

You are right John, it has definitely been renovated. What are your questions regarding this altar ?
Regards
Nic

Hi Nic

Don't know what happened to this post whilst I was writing it; went away from a brew and came back and it had posted itself?

Anyway, my questions concern the presence of the sacred heart image on the front of the altar. I could do with a clearer image of it (if anyone has one) just to confirm thats its a modern representation. The reason for this is that the sacred heart wasn't venerated in its modern form until the mid to late 18th century. This questions the accuracy of what Cholet reports, not only in regard to the great age of the altar, but also his assertion that it was demolished? This is odd, when you consider that the old altar was just nearby when he carried out his extensive surveys? If I can confirm that the sacred heart on this altar dates from the eighteenth century, then as Tingra's reaction suggests above, one is forced to wonder whether it was de Sade who provided Cholet with this false information about the old altar? His book has already been found to contain a doctored picture of bishop Leuillieres blason in the church entrance, so I find his failure to rectify the glaring error in Cholet report regarding the demolition of the altar, rather curious.

Sheila, you have a copy of de Sades book, what does he say about this old altar?

John

This altar was discussed in detail here a while back. I've got a copy of de Sede's L'Or de Rennes, I'll have a look through it when I get chance.

Regards
Nic

John,
the notorius de Sade is someone else and most likely you won't like to read his book.

Hi, not feeling up to participating in this forum any longer, i cannot believe the level of idiocy that has appeared over the last couple of weeks.

Eginolf
A bit pedantic to highlight a typing error don't you think. But for the sake of accuracy, will the few forum readers who actually read my posts please note that I erroneously wrote Sade instead of Sede!

Sheila
Are you including this thread in the "level of idiocy" you mention, or are you referring to others?

John

Did you overlook the smiley, John?

btw.
I like to be pedantic - which is all about hard evidence.

C'mon Sheila, ignore the 'idiocy' (unless you want a laugh) and concentrate on the serious stuff.

Hasten to add John that imho your query is very much a valid one.

Eginolf; whilst your checking the t's are crossed and whatever, a few of us will review what little available "hard evidence" there is. I guess you'd be participating in the conversation if you had something to say. Note the smilies...

Thanks Pilrig, and let me add my voice - C'mon Sheila, you may be surprised at where this particular conversations going; come to that, so will I,

Hasten to add John that imho your query is very much a valid one.


Why is it a valid one Pilrig? Just asking ....

The age of the altar, and the doubts about Cholet's opinion about it.

What a few people appear to be suggesting here is, that we already know everything there is to know about this old altar; the altar at the centre of this mystery!

In the "Entrance to the crypt beneath the MM Church" thread I questioned the age of this old altar once again, and Tingra kindly posted Cholet report for me. I questioned the accuracy of this report with regard to the altars age and its stated demolition. Its condition today is, I believe, testament to the fact that it was not in a derelict condition when the very rich Mme Marie Cabailhe offered to pay for a replacement. On this basis alone one has to question why she wanted this altar removed? I'm hoping the RLC history buffs can help in this matter.

One also has to ask where Cholet got the idea that the old altar was of such a great age, and that it had been demolished during its removal, when the evidence clearly indicated its survival and its reasonable condition? If cholet had known about the altars survival and seen it, he would surely have questioned the mismatch between the visigoth pillar and the (not so old) altar! So, was Cholet deliberately fed false information, and why?

Indeed, if one examines the two pillars that now support this old altar in the conservatory, they actually appear to match the old altar. Also the black paintwark around the edge of the altar table matches the black stripes on the carved portions of both pillars. If these are the original pillars, then one has to question the introduction of the famous lone visigoth pillar and its small cavity; too small to contain the documents Sauniere is said to have found?

If these observations are correct, then I suspect another false (de Sede )clue will be exposed.

John

1883 : “L'ÉTAT DÉPLORABLE OÙ SE TROUVENT LE SANCTUAIRE, L'AUTEL”... “Considérant que le service religieux est devenu impossible dans l'église paroissiale de Rennes-le-Château à cause du danger imminent que l'écroulement de la voûte du sanctuaire, DE L'ÉTAT DE VÉTUSTÉ DU MAÎTRE AUTEL...”

http://www.aparc-rennes-le-chateau.com/l'oeuvre_de_sauni%C3%A8re.htm

Carcassonne le 17 août 1883
Nous Evêque de Carcassonne

Vue en date du 25 février 1883, une délibération du conseil de fabrique paroissiale de Rennes-le-Château, par laquelle, après un exposé détaillé de l'état déplorable où se trouvent le sanctuaire, l'autel et les deux fenêtres de la nef dont les châssis ont été brisés et emportés par un ouragan, les membres du conseil concluent à l'unanimité qu'ils doivent, en présence de la pénurie absolue de la caisse fabricienne s'adresser à l'état pour rendre possible l'exercice du culte dans cette localité.
[...]
Considérant que le service religieux est devenu impossible dans l'église paroissiale de Rennes-le-Château à cause du danger imminent que l'écroulement de la voûte du sanctuaire, de l'état de vétusté du maître autel, de l'obscurité où est plongée la nef, parce qu'on a dû fermer par des planches les ouvertures des fenêtres qu'jne tempête a privées de leurs verrières;
[...]

Pour Monsieur l'Évêque absent, signé le vicaire général.

This letter from the bishop simply illustrate that he had requested the state to pay for the church repairs and a replacement altar; the altar that Mme Marie Cabailhe is said to have paid for.

Does the physical evidence suggest a need for a replacement altar? If you look at the condition of the old altar below as it emerges from each subsequent cleaning it is clear that it is not damaged in any way. Granted the roof of the ciborium is missing, so this might have been damaged. But in a situation when money was extremely short, would this have warranted the replacement of the whole altar?



We also have to address the problem of the lone visigoth pillar



Clearly the style of this pillar is at odds with the above altar; then there is the problem of the missing pillar; the recess that is too small for the parchments Sauniere is said to have discovered, and where did the two matching pillars come from that now support this old altar?

John

The letter also shows the dilapidated state of the old altar in 1883 which I thought was one of the points to be addressed. L'ÉTAT DÉPLORABLE OÙ SE TROUVENT LE SANCTUAIRE, L'AUTEL. DE L'ÉTAT DE VÉTUSTÉ DU MAÎTRE AUTEL.

Something I have never been entirely clear about is whether the old altar was supported by one or two supports. I believe it is sometimes described as fitted into the wall at one end, and with only one support at the other. In the latter case, if the sanctuary wall was dilapidated, this might explain why the altar was also affected.

Paddy

John, perhaps she thought the old alter looked out of place in the newly (modernised) refurbished church.

The Cholet report seems to suggest that it was the parchment with the bone inside that the bell ringer found that was the main sorce of the priests wealth, the one that fell from the ceiling. The other pillar held 3 parchments, 2 of which were historical documents about the area as he states that it’s thanks to those he was able to write the history of the area. The third documents he says….

The contents of the third parchment were not divulged, but Curé Saunière's subsequent conduct is a clear indication of its content. He asked some workmen who were busy building the conservatory at that time to come into the church with their shovels and pickaxes He made them dig behind the altar and soon there appeared the neck of an earthenware jar. He wanted to continue on his own: he had just found the secret hiding-place of the curé who had fled to Spain. It was in this earthenware jar that he found the magnificent ciborium which he offered to the canon of St. Paul de Fenouillet to thank him for having pleaded his cause before the court in Rome.

Later on he goes on about the pillar again and says….

The figure 8 seems to play a major part at Rennes-le-Château, as we find it on the pillar of the old altar, on its lateral sides, combined in a curious way to form a double zigzag. Also on this pillar there is a square at the end of a curved stem containing 8 circles - could these be 8 barrels? There are also other inscriptions, unfortunately partly hidden by some cement.

He then adds ….

There are also some where the second pillar of the old altar is located.

some what?

This is a picture I took of where the second altar pillar is now, outside the church in Rennes les Bains, on the cemetery side of the porch. (At least, so I've always been led to believe, so I presume that's an accepted "RLC fact", but maybe someone can verify that). You can see the damp looking mortise hole that must get filled up with rainwater. It's in a very weathered state, no trace of an inscription visible, as I recall, and I'm pretty sure I stuck my head in there to have a look. Of course, one side is turned in to the wall. I haven't thought about that pillar for ages; a site like RLC Research and Resource would probably have a page on it somewhere for more info.

It doesn't, and it's not an accepted RLC fact at all, and my memory is even more shot than I thought it was.

It's the subject of an article on Ben Hammott's website, who theorises that the lone pillar outside RLB church might be the one originally from RLC. So it's just a theory, albeit an interesting one.

http://www.benhammott.com/rennes-le-cha ... illar.html

Hi Tingra
Quite possible, but if you compare the stepped upper portions of the two altars with the two pillars edging the images of the sacred heart and the chalice+radiance, they could have been manufactured from the same template. Not such a drastic change. The only real difference is that the old Altar stood against a wall, hence the need for only two front pillars.


Is this not another anomoly, the bone and parchment, clearly indicative of an altar relic, falling from a ceiling?

By "other pillar" I'm assuming he meant the partner to the visigoth pillar, the one that has never been found? Has anyone had sight of these 2 "historical documents" that enabled him to write his history?


The only way I can explain this comment is if he had examine the underneath of old altar table as this is where the second pillar would have "located"? If so, why didn't he comment on the discrepancy between "the" visigoth pillar design and that of the old altar? Curious, why emphasise the importance of the visigoth pillar and indicate where the second fitted, without commenting upon their anomolous nature?

The whole tenet of Cholets report concerns the discovery of a treasure by Sauniere. Does anyone know if Cholets descriptions match those of de Sede in any way?

John

A good point, the roof appears to have been the main problem with ingress of rainfall which would have damaged a plastered wall, its debri perhaps making the altar appear in a poor condition. The Crypt article on RLC research, copyright Paul Saussez http://www.rlcresearch.com/2008/01/05/crypt/ shows the old altar set into a wall. However, one would imagine someone checking the condition of the altar given the costs involved in replacing it. I suggest a quick wipe over would have revealed its reasonable condition, a good clean its good condition.

John

de Sede wrote.....

The high alter was the most beautiful ornament in the church. It rested upon two antique columns of the visigothic era, on which crosses and hieroglyphic symbols were finely carved. But the stone table was in a most decrepit condition. It spoiled the overall appearance and needed replacing. Saunier undertook this task with the help of two masons, Rousset and Babou. The heavy flagstone was first removed, and it was noted with surprise that one of the pillars was hollow and stuffed with dried ferns. In this nest of leaves were 3 wooden tubes sealed with wax, when opened they were found to contain parchments.

Thanks for this Tingra


Intriguing; Note how he stresses that the Stone table was in a "decrepit condition", such that it "spoiled the overall appearance" of the "most beautiful" high altar on its two finely carved antique columns.

Does this description of a heavy flagstone (stone table) match the image of the thin altar table above? I would suggest not, but his mention of only two masons removing it, does!

Is it possible that he overstate the size of the stone table in order to introduce this visigoth pillar into the story? Remember that he knew the old altar resided in the conservatory of the villa Bethenia.

Does anyone have any comments on the matching pillars of the old altar above?

John

I think I must have been mistaken yesterday, John, about the number of pillars.
Checking, all I can seem to find now is along the lines of the following in Corbu et Captier’s “ L’héritage de l’abbé Saunière”, which you already know:

‘C’est également cette année là qu’il va procéder au remplacemet du vieil autel. Il était très vetuste et se présentait sous la forme d’une simple dalle “ fixée d’un côté dans le mur et soutenue par deux piliers, l’un brut, l’autre sculpté”, d’après un écrit de l’abbé lui-même.’

‘It was also that year that he started on replacing the old altar. It was very dilapidated and came in the form of a simple stone slab, “fixed on one side into the wall, and supported by two pillars, one unpolished, and the other carved”, according to a document by the Abbé himself.”

Paddy