I dont quite understand why researchers keep saying stuff like "Finally, making appeals to the story of Ignace Paris (mistakenly called a “legend”) – a story that originated with Noël Corbu during the mid-1950s – only avoids the fact that Corbu was unable to substantiate his story about Ignace Paris".
Why?
Because whether this shepherd existed under this name or not, the fact remains that there was some strange goings on concerning the lands owned by Blaise Hautpoul - and it is the same land that the legend of the shepherd Paris occurs on.
Blaise Hautpoul, son of Francois, had the church at Rennes-le-Chateau restored in 1646 and in this endeavour was helped by Nicolas Pavillon, Bishop of Alet. In November 1661 Blaise Hautpoul, for some unexplained reason goes to court against Nicolas Pavillon, still the bishop of Alet, to prevent him and the Kings troops (Louis XIVth) searching and trampling over his lands and mines.
Blaise's lands and possessions included Rennes, St Just, Le Bezu, les Bains (Rennes-les-Bains), Montferrand, Montazels and La Val Dieu. The long and complex trial will end in Grenoble in April 1666 to the advantage of Nicolas Pavillon, but [only] after the King breaks the judgments in favour of the bishop. This historical fact deserves to be noted as Louis XIVth and Nicolas Pavillon were particularly opposed to each other. Why then give a judgment in favour of his opponent?
This is all the more suspicious when we see that "Pavillon, a follower of Saint Vincent de Paul, made history as, the French icon of Jansenism. Some time after he had been sent to Alet by Richelieu to become the new bishop he converted to Jansenism and became a fierce advocate of orthodox catholicism. Jansenism took a stand against France portraying itself as the ‘most christian nation’, while at the same time allying with the protestant Netherlands and Germany for the sole purpose of bringing down the Austrian House of Habsburg. This was no small thing. By choosing Jansenism the bishop not only alienated himself from his King and country but also from pope Alexander VII". [http://www.renneslechateau.nl/2008/03/09/nicolas-pavillon/].
In point of fact, the so called legend of Paris is dated to 1645.
This is one year before the church was restored by Blaise and of course 16 years before Blaise goes to court to stop Pavillon and the King trespassing and digging up his land.
We know that Cherisey asserted that the BEAUSOLEIL couple, Martine Bertereau & Jean du Chatelet, mineralogists, mining engineers and dowsers - .
" ...managed to persuade Louis XIVth that there was a gold dépôt in ROCKO-NEGRO near Rennes-les-Bains, where stood the ruins of the famous Blanchefort castle belonging to Blaise I d’HAUPOUL. Nothing should have allowed the Royal power to dig up someone else's property. By chance, however, Blaise d’Haupoul had asked to reclaim the title of marquis de Blanchefort. Everything was set to proceed quickly on one side and very slowly on the other. In 1644, owing to Colbert's efforts, a team of German or Scandinavian miners landed at Rocko-Negro and started digging long tunnels which are still visible today. These workers spoke a language unknown to the occitans and [they] lived in camps on the spot: discretion was thus assured.
Meanwhile, Blaise d’Haupoul is informed that all is well regarding the marquisat of Blanchefort, but he is discretely dispossessed of Rocko-Negro where stands the BLANCHEFORT castle. On January 4th 1669, the Haupouls are made Marquis de Blanchefort. The trick had been to baptise "château de Blanchefort" - a mere pillbox measuring 2 by 3 m. at the top of a rock bearing the name Coume les Bains. The gold mining failed in 1667 and the miners decamped".
Cherisey is therefore making a connection between all these events.
The BEAUSOLEIL couple had maried in 1610, the wife being the educated daughter of a noble family of French mine owners who accompanied her husband on his tours and at his work underground
Auguste de Labouïsse-Rochefort added [in regards to the legend of the Devils Treasure at Blanchefort] - "The annoying thing about this affair was that M. de Fleury, then Lord of the villages of Montferrand, Bains, Rennes, as well as the ruins of Blanchefort, wanted to bring an action against them for having attempted to violate his lands…". Here Labouïsse-Rochefort links Blanchefort with a legendary treasure and the lands of Hautpoul/Fleury. What is more, Blanchefort is central to it, as is the marquisat of Blanchefort that Blaise allegedly asked to reclaim back!
In Rennes-le-Chateau itself there is even a legendary Aven [pothole] that a Paris is associated with & this treasure story.
There is also the story of a shepherd who found treasure in the native region of Simon de Monfort - "Some speculate that it would therefore be Montfort who would have brought this story to the Aude"
Whichever way one looks at it - somebody was looking for something on the land of the Haupoul at Rennes!