Abstract

This article re-examines the contested life and activities of Abbé Bérenger Saunière, parish priest of Rennes-le-Château (1885–1915), by integrating documentary, architectural, financial, and historiographical evidence. While popular narratives attribute his wealth to a spectacular treasure discovery or elaborate conspiracies, recent primary-source analyses—including account books, correspondence registers, oral testimonies, and architectural interventions—suggest a more complex chronology. This article argues that Saunière’s early behaviour (1887–1895) indicates systematic searching motivated by a perceived discovery, while his later wealth (1896–1907) derived primarily from complex networks of donations, mass intentions, and patronage, not solely mass trafficking. The study proposes a new synthesis reconciling the early search phase with the later financial phase and reassesses the plausibility that Saunière’s initial discoveries involved documents, relics, or a small hoard, rather than a mythical treasure.

_Introduction

The figure of Abbé Bérenger Saunière has occupied a unique place in modern French cultural and historical imagination. Since his death in 1917, he has been cast variously as a treasure-hunter, fraudster, mystic, royalist intermediary, and conspiratorial guardian of explosive secrets. Scholarship since the mid-20th century has been polarized between mystification (e.g., de Sède 1967; Plantard 1960s-80s) and demystification (Descadeillas 1974; Jarnac 1985), yet newly examined primary material—including the notebooks of Saunière, financial records studied by Buchholtzer (2006), and oral testimonies documented by Saussez (2004–2010)—complicates both camps.This article integrates the multiple lines of evidence into a coherent historical analysis. Two central research questions guide this study:

(1) Did Saunière’s early activities constitute a deliberate search triggered by a discovery?

(2) Can the later income (1896–1907) be explained solely by mass trafficking, or does the evidence imply additional financial mechanisms?

By applying interdisciplinary methods combining documentary criticism, architectural analysis, financial reconstruction, and oral-history assessment, this article argues for a two-phase model:

Phase I (1887–1895): a period of searching, secrecy, and architectural interventions triggered by a probable discovery in the church.

Phase II (1896–1907): a period of rapid income growth, largely but not exclusively tied to mass intentions, donations, and systematic solicitation networks.

_{Background: Rennes-le-Château, 19th-Century Clergy, and Canonical Context}

The late 19th-century French rural priesthood lived within stringent financial and canonical constraints. Priests’ stipends averaged 900 francs annually (Choloux 2010), making supplementary income through stipendia missarum (fees for celebrating Masses) common (Marie 1977). Canon law permitted acceptance of mass intentions but limited priests to three Masses per day and required surplus stipends to be passed to the diocese. Simultaneously, church renovations often produced finds—relics, documents, family tomb markers—especially in medieval parishes where altars and columns had been reused over centuries. Episcopal visitations from 1856 and 1876 at Rennes note the presence of relics and documents stored within altars, making later discoveries during Saunière’s renovations plausible.

_{Phase I (1887–1895): The Search Phase}

_{The phial and parchment discovery}

Oral testimony preserved by the Saunière and Dénarnaud families, later reported by Saussez (2008), describes the discovery of a glass phial containing a parchment inside or atop a discarded church baluster circa 1887. Although no diary entry corroborates the event directly, the discovery aligns with:

• architectural practices of storing relics or liturgical documents inside architectural elements;
• workers’ statements recalling “glinting objects” beneath a stone slab;
• parish tradition recording the “Tomb of the Lords” beneath the church.

The absence of a written note by Saunière is not probative: the diaries were personal working tools, never intended as a complete historical record and demonstrably incomplete in other respects (Buchholtzer 2006).

_{Immediate behavioural shifts}

Following the alleged discovery, Saunière undertook several actions (1889–1894) which are difficult to explain as ordinary renovation:

• petitioning the council to close and control the church square for 300 days per year;
• systematic excavation inside the cemetery;
• relocating the statue of the Virgin outside the church and constructing recesses around original placement;
• dismantling and relocating the altar of the Virgin and reinstalling its stones;
• covering newly opened floor passages with temporary boards;
• creating the so-called Secret Room at the opposite end of the nave.

These actions represent deliberate, multi-year spatial interventions, consistent with an attempt to locate an underground feature such as a crypt, ossuary, or repository.

_{Consultation network}

Immediately after the 1891 discovery, Saunière visited:

• Dr. Carrière (Limoux),
• Abbé Lasserre (Alet),
• Abbé Cros (Campagne-sur-Aude),
• Abbé Gélis (Coup de Poing), among others.

The network consists of priests with antiquarian or architectural knowledge or ties to the Legitimist/ultra-Catholic circles surrounding Count de Chambord.

In 1891–1892, Saunière also received a 1,000-franc donation routed through Carrière, whose cousin served as Chambord’s personal physician (Saussez 2008). This pattern suggests that something unusual—not routine repairs—was communicated up this clerical-royalist chain.

_{Phase II (1896–1907): The Income Expansion Phase}

_{The account books: what they actually show}

Buchholtzer’s and Bedu's study of the original accounting registers (1897–1915) documents:

• 185,657.11 francs of income recorded;
• 4,660 “mass correspondence” items between 1896–1908 (≈1 per day);
• a rapid increase in revenues in 1899–1901, including one month with >20,000 francs;
• the sudden disappearance of 20,000 francs (later traced to an annuity investment);
• numerous donations from individuals, monasteries, and priests—many unrelated to mass obligations.

Critically this concludes:

_{“Mass trafficking cannot have been the sole source of income” (Buchholtzer 2006).}

_{The trafficking hypothesis, revised}

Descadeillas (1974) claimed Saunière received 100–150 postal orders daily. This is not supported by primary documents. Corbu & Captier’s publication of the mass registers (1990) shows that Saunière received approximately 110,000 mass intentions during his career, corresponding to 100,000–125,000 francs total. This is substantial, but represents less than 20% of Saunière's total expenditure documented by Corjan de Raaf (2010). Thus the “mass trafficking as sole cause of wealth” hypothesis is untenable.

_{Donations and patronage networks}

Sizable donations were received from:

• priests (e.g., Sarda: 1,500 francs between 1899–1902),
• monasteries across France, including Chartres and Lourdes,
• anonymous benefactors,
• donors with whom Saunière exchanged portraits and greetings,
• individuals connected to Chambord’s Legitimist circles.

Saunière himself reported 82,800 francs in “gifts” in his 1911 defence.

_{Why did donors give so much to a remote country priest?}

This is the central enigma: what was his “selling point”? Neither mass trafficking nor standard pious solicitation explains:

• the geographical distribution (concentrated in Paris and major religious centres);
• the size of certain donations;
• long-term patronage by donors who never met him;
• support from clergy of notable rank.

This suggests Saunière’s relationship with donors involved a message, claim, or perceived possession that distinguished him from ordinary priests.

_{Financial Reconstruction: What Can and Cannot Be Explained}

Using De Raaf (2010) and Buchholtzer (2006) and Bedu (1990):

• Expenditure (known): ≈695,151 francs
• Mass income: ≈100,000–125,000 francs
• Gifts: 82,800 francs (self-reported)
• Collection boxes: unknown, but likely 500–1,200 francs/year
• Priests’ salaries (Saunière + Dénarnaud family): ≈1,800 francs/year combined
• Postcards, unrecorded sales, lost notebooks: non-quantifiable

Even generously calculated, the total remains insufficient to explain ≈700,000 francs in expenditure. Thus at least one of the following must be true:

1. Substantial undocumented donations exist.
2. Lost or hidden account books contained additional income records.
3. Saunière benefited from a private patron or network, separate from mass trafficking.
4. He found something (valuables/documents) that generated financial or symbolic capital.

This article evaluates the last possibility not as sensationalism but as a historically plausible mechanism.

_{Archaeological and Architectural Assessment}

_{The "Tomb of the Lords"}

Multiple sources—parish traditions, the 1876 Leuillieux report, Saunière’s correspondence, and village testimony—refer to:

• a crypt under the church,
• burials of the Hautpoul-Blanchefort seigneurial family,
• a “Gate of the Lords” entrance on the south side,
• indications of blocked passages.

Cholet’s later excavation found steps consistent with Saussez’s hypothesis of a corridor leading beneath the nave.

_{Alignment of Saunière’s interventions with crypt features}

Several architectural choices make sense if Saunière was attempting to rediscover an underground chamber:

• Control of the church square to prevent observation
• Lifting the Virgin altar, which corresponds in size to a stairwell opening as identified by Saussez
• Constructing recesses and platforms above suspected voids
• Installing temporary flooring over open cavities
• Repeated manipulation of balusters, pillars, and slabs

These actions are too targeted to be decorative. They reflect locational knowledge—possibly derived from the alleged phial/ parchment/Parish Register.

_{Historiographical Reassessment}

_{The treasure-school (de Sède 1967; Plantard 1960s–1980s)}

Romanticised, based on forged documents, but grew from genuine village rumours that predate the 1960s.

_{The anti-treasure school (Descadeillas 1974; Jarnac 1985)}

Accurately identifies mass trafficking but exaggerates its financial magnitude and dismisses oral tradition a priori.

_{The modern archival school (Saussez, Buchholtzer, de Raaf, Choloux, Bedu)}

This group introduces documentary precision and rejects extreme claims on both sides. Their findings support a hybrid interpretation.

_{Synthesis: A New Integrated Model}

Based on the interdisciplinary evidence, the following scenario best fits the known data.

_{A real discovery (1887–1891)}

Saunière probably found:

• documents or genealogical material related to the Lords of Rennes, and/or
• relics or devotional items, and/or
• a small hoard (e.g., coins, medals), not a treasure of major value.

This triggered:

• deliberate searching,
• consultations with clerical-royalist contacts,
• rumours among villagers.

_{A new identity and network (1891–1896)}

The discovery granted Saunière a story, a mission, or a claim to special knowledge. This transformed him into a figure who could solicit:

• benefactors in religious communities,
• priests interested in relics or history,
• Legitimist supporters intrigued by lineage or symbolism,
• pious associations seeking devotional legitimacy.

_{Financial acceleration (1896–1907)}

Saunière then implemented a system combining:

• mass intentions (substantial but insufficient),
• donations (substantial),
• patronage (unknown sums),
• reciprocation networks (portraits, greetings),
• possibly the mystique of his earlier “find.”

_{Conflict with the bishop (1909–1911)}

The trial revolved around mass income because:

• it was provable,
• it was administratively unacceptable,
• it avoided the deeper question of why he was receiving donations.

The bishop himself (per Count Fondi de Niort’s testimony) did not believe the trafficking alone explained the affair.

_Conclusion

This article demonstrates that the long-standing binary between “treasure discovery” and “mass trafficking” is historically inadequate. The combined documentary, architectural, financial, and oral evidence supports a two-phase model:

1. Search Phase (1887–1895): triggered by a plausible discovery of documents, relics, or small valuables, leading to targeted excavations and secretive behaviour.
2. Financial Phase (1896–1907): characterised by complex income streams including mass intentions, donations, and patronage far exceeding what mass trafficking alone could generate.

The Rennes-le-Château mystery does not require a fabulous treasure. It requires recognition that a modest but meaningful discovery could generate:

• local rumours
• clerical interest
• a network of donors
• a psychological sense of mission
• and the later mythmaking that transformed Saunière into a figure of legend.

The unresolved question is not whether Saunière found a treasure, but what symbolic or documentary value his early discoveries held—and why so many donors across France were willing to support a remote priest with unprecedented generosity.

_References

Jean-Jacques Bedu, 1990. 'Rennes-le-Château - Autopsie d'un mythe' (1990)pp 115-148.

Buchholtzer, Laurent. 2006. Interview with Johan Netchacovitch, Sept. 30, 2006.

Captier, Antoine, and Corbu, Claude. 1990. L’Héritage de l’Abbé Saunière. Perpignan: Editions Bélisane.

Choloux, Jérôme. 2010. Saunière: Étude des archives financières. Manuscript collection.

Descadeillas, René. 1974. Mythologie du trésor de Rennes. Carcassonne: Société d’Études Scientifiques de l’Aude.

De Raaf, Corjan. 2010. “Mass Trafficking and the Finances of Bérenger Saunière.” RLC Research Papers.

De Sède, Gérard. 1967. L’Or de Rennes. Paris: Julliard.

Jarnac, Pierre. 1985. Histoire du trésor de Rennes-le-Château. Nice: Les Presses du Midi.

Marie, Franck. 1977. Rennes-le-Château: Critical Studies. Paris: Éditions Pégase.

Saussez, Paul. 2004–2010. Conferences and CDs on Rennes-le-Château Archaeology. Brussels.

Tomatis, Mariano. 2010. “Saunière’s Trial and the Vatican Appeals.” RLC Studies Archive.