This section is a small
analysis of a highly crucial page to be found in Boudet's Book La Vraie Langue
Celtique and which in my opinion has a big bearing on the whole mystery.
As those of you who are
frequent visitors to my site will know, the numbers 11 and 111 are of some
considerable significance in this mystery. My attention was first drawn to
them by spotting the marks on the Devil's wing as shown here:
I took the five vertical
strokes to mean 5 occurrences of the number 1, ie the number 11,111. As you will
know you can only make two useful and meaningful numbers from this one big
number, that is to say by breaking up the numerals. In doing so you arrive at 11 and 111.
I should also mention that the number 11,111 is only divisible 41 and 271 and
these numbers too are extremely important since they appear uniquely on the
second of the Blanchefort Headstones.
I have also contended for some time that most of
what we see in RLC was not actually the product of Saunière's imagination but
instead that of Boudet. It is perhaps unfair to give all the credit to Boudet,
I am sure Saunière came up with quite a few of his own ideas but for the most
part I think the architect in charge was Boudet and especially so since he was
following a plan he had been working on for the greater part of his life.
Although I found innumerable
references to these numbers in various parts of the church and indeed
elsewhere in the region I have always been tempted to try to make a link to
Boudet's famous book La Vraie Langue Celtique. Since this number appears to be
of such critical importance I naturally cross referenced it to his book.
The following link will take you to the page in question:
View Page 111
As
with all such little forays, one never really knows what is likely to emerge
but as any cryptographer will tell you when something does, it is usually
striking and immediately lets you know you have hit something.
On page 111
of his book Boudet gives us a Biblical citation:
(1) Gen.
c. IX. v. 18. 19.
As you can
see even though it consists of very few characters there are quite a few
anomalies that strike one from the word go. The Roman numerals in
particular attract the attention since they appear to be formed from both
upper and lower case letters. IX (9) appears to be signaled as
important. It stands prominently
between a tiny c and a tiny v. If we use this number to
multiply all our other numbers we get:
| 9
x 18 = 162 |
| 9
x 19 = 171 |
| 9
x 5 = 45 |
| 9
x 100 = 900 |
Immediately
we can see one well known occurrence, the number 171 which can be read a
17th January. This is the date on which Marie de Blanchefort died. Next we
have 162+171
that adds up to 333 and which is the half of 666. 333 is also a number often seen
in churches in the region. The sum total of these numbers is 1278.
You will notice
in the Biblical citation that there are also 6 dots used. If we include their
number and add this to our group we now get:
| 9
x 18 = 162 |
| 9
x 19 = 171 |
| 9
x 5 = 45 |
| 9
x 100 = 900 |
| 9 x
6 = 54 |
The sum
total of our number is now 1332 or the equivalent of 666 x 2. As you will
also know this number is by exactly 111 more than 1221 (11 x 111). Is
Boudet drawing our attention to 666 or 111?
This result is in itself I fear no
great revelation but the number 111 is immediately apparent via a much
more direct route. By taking the the Roman numerals CIX and rearranging you
obtain 111, ie CXI. Interestingly the only Roman numerals that needed to be
reversed were the IX which are highlighted in upper case. This number is also
immediately visible by simply taking all the ones (not Roman numerals) that
appear in the citation. As you can see it is a number brought to the attention
of the reader in innumerable ways.
The citation
fortunately has more to offer us and here too we need to refer to the 6 dots. We need only take our derived number
(111) and multiply by six to arrive
at 666. This perhaps is what he intended for us to see particularly since
it seems to be a number that occurs in the church with some regularity. There is still
one more thing that we can do. The Biblical citation is numbered as 1 and
then we also have the six dots. By placing the 1 and the 6 together we get
16. Now if we multiply the number 111 by 16 we arrive at 1776. To me this
looks remarkably like a date and indeed we do have just such a date in
this puzzle. It is the date on which Paul Urbain de Fleury was born and
which is engraved on his tombstone in the cemetery of the church at
Rennes-les-Bains. It would indeed be nice if we could obtain the
date on which he also died. This turns out to be simpler than one might think.
Paul Urbain de Fleury died in 1836. The text on page 111 contains exactly 918
characters. If we multiply 918 by 2 we arrive at this very date, 1836.
Unfortunately for us Paul Urbain de Fleury has actually two tombstones
commemorating his death and they show different dates for his death. The
second stone indicates that he died in the year 1856, a full twenty years
later. Perhaps this is an unnecessary complication sine his grave marker does
appear to have been highlighted. As you will see in a moment the citation and
the text provide also the dates on which he was born as well as the one on
which he died.
It is also
interesting to note in the biblical citation that the numbers 18 and 19 side by
side can be reformed easily to make 1891. As we know this was the date on
which Saunière became rich and he duly engraved it on the old Visigothic
pillar to be found in RLC. However Boudet was actually writing his book
sometime before the arrival of Saunière in the village of RLC. The date
therefore has to be something else and indeed we only need to rotate the
number through 180o in order to arrive at 1681. This as you will
know is the date erroneously appearing on the Blanchefort headstone and
marking the year in which she died. She in fact died in 1781. There is another oddity to be found in the
text. As already mentioned it contains a total of 918 characters and here too if we take the number
of the Biblical citation (1) we can tag it on to the beginning of this number
to make 1918 and of course by rearranging we again arrive at either 1891 or
1681. Superficially it would appear Boudet is drawing our attention to both
the Blancheforts and the Fleury. The link to the Blanchefort tomb stone
can be reinforced still more from the text.
The text of Page
111 contains three main paragraphs
if we choose to ignore the first line with the Biblical reference as well as
the very final line, the citation itself.
These are the statistics:
|
Para. |
Words |
Characters |
|
1 |
35 |
201 |
|
2 |
53 |
277 |
|
3 |
73 |
372 |
By simple subtraction we
have 372 - 201 = 171. This can be equated to 17th January which is the
date on which Marie d'Hautpoul de Blanchefort died. Here and from a completely
different route is the same date again. He seems to be giving us this date twice and
hence reinforcing its importance. I am not sure if this is also
significant but in the paragraphs we two sets of numbers mirror imaged 35 and
53 and then in the third paragraph we have 73 words and 372 characters, ie 73
and 37 are clearly visible. The use of mirror imaged numbers in this way is
all pervasive in this mystery. Curiously the numbers 35, 53, 73 and 37
added together equal 198. If we were to add a 1 to the end of the number
we are again back with 1981 or in rearranged order, 1891 and 1681.
And now we come
to the specific dates on which the Viscount of Fleury died. The number 35 can be read as 3rd May and this is given in
reality as the
date on which he was born. He died on 7th of August which can be written
as 78 or possibly 87. Does this number also exist? Well yes it does. In order
to arrive at our number we need to count the final paragraph with the biblical
citation. It gives us 392 characters. Now all we need to do is to add the
characters of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st paragraphs giving us 392 + 277 + 201 = 870.
It is a number that needs to be divided by ten and we actually have a ten
available in the form of the very first line. It is only the tail end of a
paragraph on the preceding page but it has all together 10 words. Now of
course 870 divided by 10 gives us 87 or august 7th. Boudet provided us with
two references for Marie de Blanchefort and curiously he does the same here
too. If you now look at the Biblical citation you will see that we have the Roman numerals c.
IX. v. The C and the V are highlighted by means of being much smaller
than their neighbor IX. This seems to indicate we need to take them
separately. Together they make 105. The very first Arabic number we come to is
then 18. Thus 105-18 = 87. Here then is the second confirmation of this date.
There is also a third confirmation and it is also obtained from the biblical
citation. This time we need to use the word Gen plus the Roman numeral C. To
arrive at our number we need the alphabetic equivalents of the letters, thus
G=7, E=5, N=14 and C=3. Since we have only one word Gen followed by C it seems
to imply that we need to multiply the alphabetic equivalents of the word Gen
by the alphabetic equivalent of the letter C. Now we have 7+5+14=26 times 3 =
78.
At this stage
Boudet has apparently provided references for both Marie de Blanchefort and
also the Viscount de Fleury in the forms of the dates and years on which they
died. Additionally the information is provided twice and sometimes even three
times and by very different methods.
As we know Marie
de Blanchefort died at the age of 67 if we go by the inscription on her tomb.
This date appears to be present in the citation also. The Roman numerals cIX
can be read literally as "Six", that it to say if we read them as a word.
Following this we have a Roman numeral V denoting 5. 6 x 5 = 30 + 18 + 19 =
67. Her age can also be arrived by another method. VC = 95 - 9 -19 = 67. And
by a third method CIX = 109 -5 -18 -19 = 67.
Unfortunately
the ages for Paul Urbain de Fleury are not so easily arrived at. One can make
them but the process is far too convoluted for me to believe this is what
Boudet planned.
There is
certainly a lot more contained in this page and I am sure it will emerge as time
goes by.
It's a very cleverly engineered
little puzzle.
