The Trial of Gilles De Rais Read online

  He confronts the storm decisively. He will join the Duke at Josselin; he will explain himself there. But he measures the risk. It is impossible to know, before setting out, whether he will return from this trip. That is why, before setting out from Machecoul, he orders Prelati to interrogate the devil Barron; he wants to know whether he can meet the Duke safely; he wants to know whether he will return …

  The devil says yes!

  They leave Machecoul, and on the way Gilles asks the conjuror to pose the question again; it makes him restless. He has it posed again at Nantes and, upon arriving at Josselin, Prelati is requested to pursue the invocations. He has him pursue them in a field. Gilles does not attend. According to François, Barron appears this time clad in a mantle of violet silk. Once again he guarantees their return; Gilles de Rais will take the road to Machecoul (p. 215).

  * * *

  The vain and bloody journey to Josselin

  * * *

  We know nothing of the interview between Gilles and Jean V We also know nothing of the hospitality that the Duke must have shown the Marshal. Prelati must seek the devil in a field. It is also in a field that Henriet says he led three children, whom he kills. Poitou, who is ill, is absent. This is all we know.

  Gilles tells his servants that he has come to see the Duke about the money he owes him. But they know the score; their master is from then on reduced to feigning.

  * * *

  (1440)

  Murder at Vannes

  * * *

  Presumably the stay at Josselin was painful for him, and for this reason Gilles wanted to leave as soon as possible for Vannes to find André Buchet, the choirboy he had introduced, at the latest in 1434, into his chapel. He knew what to expect. At Vannes, Gilles is lodged outside the walls of the city, near the episcopal manor in a place called La Mothe, in the house of a man named Lemoine. Evidently André Buchet belongs as of this period to the chapel of the Duke, which often resides at Vannes (at any rate he belonged to it some weeks later, at the time of the trial). Buchet leads Gilles to the son, nearly ten, of a neighborhood resident, Jean Lavary by name. But there is no place secret enough to kill a child at Lemoine’s. The child is led to a house relatively nearby, run by a man named Boetden. The head of the child is severed — then burned — in Gilles’ room. The body, tied with a belt, is carried to the latrines of this Boetden’s house and Poitou, apparently recovered from his illness, is supposed to descend into the pit; it is necessary to shove down and cover the corpse so that it will not be found. Henriet and Buchet are then supposed to help Poitou up out of the pit.

  Poitou insists that Buchet, who belonged to the ducal chapel at the time of the trial, knew everything. Gilles himself states that Buchet was not ignorant of any of the children’s murders (pp. 231-232).

  * * *

  July 29 Results of the secret inquest by the Bishop of Nantes

  * * *

  The Bishop of Nantes and Chancellor of Brittany, Jean de Malestroit, publishes in the form of letters patent the results of the secret inquest that seems to have immediately followed the outrage of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte. It establishes that Gilles de Rais, subject and justiciable of the Bishop, abused numerous children, whom he killed; moreover, he invoked demons and signed a pact with them; public rumor accuses him of all these crimes.

  * * *

  Around August 15 Last murder

  * * *

  Raoulet de Launay, a tailor in Nantes, makes a doublet for Éonnet de Villeblanche’s child. This child does not live with his parents then, but with Poitou. It is Poitou who pays Raoulet twenty sous for the doublet. Poitou, in his deposition, acknowledges that the child’s mother, who goes by the name of Macée, gave him the child as a page and that he had to clothe him himself. According to Poitou the child was killed and burned, and Raoulet de Launay, in his testimony, testifies that he never saw him again. This is the last alleged murder; it occurs after the letters patent issued on July 29th (p. 270).

  * * *

  August 24 Collapse: Constable de Richemont seizes Tiffauges

  * * *

  Although all that Jean V has ever done is hide when faced with Gilles de Rais, he now decides to be done with him. His chancellor, Jean de Malestroit, must have convinced him easily enough: public rumor is too strong; on the day of the Saint-Étienne affair, Gilles exceeded the limits; there are no opposing interests from here on out.

  But the Duke is anxious at this moment to reconcile, at least tacitly, with the King. Jean V knows that Charles VII is no longer interested in the Marshal; however, it is not useful to give him the pretext for an intervention possibly motivated by the memory of the Duke’s hostile attitude at the time of the Praguerie. That is why he thinks of involving one of the crown’s principal officers, his brother Arthur de Richemont, the Constable of France.

  Arthur is disposed to lend his brother the requested support. He has the greatest horror of sorcerers and undoubtedly never liked the Marshal, a creature of his worst enemy, La Trémoille. In exchange Arthur will receive two lands, completing the appanage of which the Duke, his brother, has not yet fulfilled. He will receive in particular Bourgneuf-en-Rais, a fief that Gilles still has in Brittany. Gilles is not dead, but the cards have been dealt — the Duke is already distributing the spoils.44

  On August 24th, the Duke confers with his brother at Vannes. Only his brother, the King’s officer, can take Tiffauges (and Poitou), where Gilles hoped to keep his prisoner from Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte, Jean Le Ferron, safe from a ducal action. Everything hastens when Arthur accepts the responsibility of seizing Tiffauges; Jean Le Ferron is freed. Gilles no longer has a hostage. He ought to know by now what awaits him. Nothing can save him. On hearing the news of the Constable’s entrance into Tiffauges, Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville decide to hit the road. They must have amassed a sufficient fortune in anticipation of this event … Only those who have no recourse to escape remain: the foreigner Prelati, the priest Blanchet, and the two valets-factotum, Henriet and Poitou. Gilles himself could have fled perhaps, if it were not for a constant, absurd hope. With enduring naïveté, he cannot believe that anyone would come to take him.

  * * *

  Prior to September 15

  * * *

  Emissaries of the secular court have in turn entered the region. They have led an inquest of their own. They have heard almost the same complaints as the ecclesiastical court (p. 249). They are the ones who have decided on Gilles’ arrest and have done whatever was necessary to effect it.

  * * *

  (1440)

  September 13 Gilles is indicted for the murder of children and invoking demons

  * * *

  Gilles is cited before the ecclesiastical tribunal of Nantes; he is indicted for the murder of children and sodomy, the invocations of demons, the offending of Divine Majesty, and heresy.

  * * *

  September 15 Arrest

  * * *

  The Duke of Brittany’s men appear at the portal of Machecoul with captain of arms Jean Labbé in the lead, assisted by notary public Robin Guillaument, in the name of the Chancellor and Bishop Jean de Malestroit.

  Marshal de Rais is arrested.

  François Prelati, Eustache Blanchet, Henriet and Poitou are arrested at the same time.

  On the road to Nantes prison, Henriet, who is terrified, thinks of cutting his own throat (p. 276).

  * * *

  After September 15

  * * *

  Appearing before the secular court of Nantes, Gilles de Rais is supposed to answer for two chief counts: the murders of children and the Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte affair (the outrage against Jean Le Ferron and his detention; the occupation of the castle of Saint-Étienne, which he had transferred to Geoffroy Le Ferron, the treasurer-general of Brittany). All we have of the hearing is a semi-official report, which gives us only Gilles’ response to the second count. Absolutely no response to the murders. Had the accusation of the prosecuting attorney carried on that item, given
Gilles’ attitude before the ecclesiastical judges on October 8th, he evidently would not have been so conciliatory about the Saint-Étienne affair. Apparently the civil judges maintained the same prudence that the ecclesiastical judges did, and from the beginning kept quiet on the very serious aspect of the affair. The author of the report could have seen it as an oversight, but he did not take it upon himself to introduce Gilles’ response concerning the children into his notes.

  * * *

  September 18 Lamentations of the victims’ parents

  * * *

  Pierre de L’Hôpital, the President of Brittany,45 has the upper hand on the secular proceedings in the action brought against Lord de Rais. A cleric, Jean de Touscheronde, charged with the inquest, begins by hearing testimonies concerning the murders of Peronne Loessart’s son, of La Roche-Bernard, and Jamet Brice, of Port-Launay (pp. 253-256).

  * * *

  September 19

  * * *

  Trial proceedings against Gilles de Rais open at Nantes in the great upper hall of the castle of La Tour Neuve (p. 159). Gilles de Rais, the accused, appears before Jean de Malestroit, Bishop of Nantes. He hears the charges read by the “prosecutor” (charged with petitioning against him), Guillaume Chapeillon. He accuses him of having admitted to “doctrinal heresy.” For this reason he is ordered to appear, at the same time as before the Bishop, before the Vicar of the Inquisitor, Jean Blouyn, who is charged with the Inquisition in the city and diocese of Nantes. He will appear September 28th before these two judges, whose jurisdiction he at first acknowledges. It then seems to him perhaps relatively easy to respond to the sole accusation of heresy.

  * * *

  September 27

  * * *

  Jean de Touscheronde prosecutes the civil inquest; he hears witnesses on the subject of the disappearance of Jean Bernard, of Port-Launay (p. 256).

  * * *

  September 28

  * * *

  The Bishop, Jean de Malestroit, and the Vicar of the Inquisitor, Jean Blouyn, a Dominican, are present in the chapel of the episcopal manor for the appearance of ten plaintiffs accusing Lord de Rais of having shamefully abused and massacred either their son or their nephew (pp. 159-163). They complain “grievously and tearfully.” However, Gilles de Rais, whose presence was anticipated, does not show this day.

  * * *

  September 28, 29, and 30

  * * *

  Jean de Touscheronde prosecutes his inquest; he hears witnesses concerning the disappearance of: the children of Georget Le Barbier, Jean (or Guillaume) Jeudon, Jeannot Roussin, Alexandre Chastelier, Guillaume Sergent, Mathelin Thouars, Jeanne Édelin, Mace Sorin, one named Oran, Thomas Aisé, Guillaume Hamelin and Micheau Bouer; Bernard Le Camus; and the child of Jeannette Drouet. Furthermore, he listens to the personal complaint made by Perrine, Clement Rondeau’s wife, on the subject of Prelati (pp. 257-262).

  * * *

  October 2

  * * *

  Continuation of Jean de Touscheronde’s inquest; in question are the disappearances of: a child of Regnaud Donete; Jean Hubert; a son of Jean Jenvret; a son of Colin Avril; a child of Guibelet Delit; a pupil of Jean Toutblanc; a son of Jean Fougère; and a son of Éonnet de Villeblanche (pp. 269-270).

  * * *

  October 6

  * * *

  Continuation of the same inquest concerning the disappearance of Perrot Dagaye (p. 270).

  * * *

  (1440)

  October 8

  * * *

  Continuation of the same inquest; concerning the disappearance of: the two sons of Robin Pavot; Olivier Darel; Jean Hubert; the son of Regnaud and L. Donete (pp. 270-274).

  In the lower hall of the castle of La Tour Neuve, the ten plaintiffs of the earlier hearing return for the accusation brought “clamorously, grievously, and tearfully” before the Bishop and the Vicar of the Inquisitor (pp. 162-163). Besides murder and sodomy, it is a question of the “invocation of evil spirits” and “many other crimes concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction.”

  The same day, but this time “in a great upper hall” of the castle of La Tour Neuve, Gilles de Rais and the “prosecutor” appear together before the Bishop and the Vicar of the Inquisitor. On that day the prosecutor’s accusation, delivered verbally, cites the totality of crimes and offenses brought against the criminal, such as they are found in the forty-nine articles of the “bill of indictment” presented later. Gilles reacts immediately and appeals to his judges, but his appeal is rejected at once as frivolous. He thereupon objects to his judges with a savage denial. In spite of four demands and the threat of lawful excommunication, he refuses to take an oath.

  That day then is the true beginning of the trial; the entire accusation on this day is announced. Pierre de l’Hôpital, in charge of the secular court’s action, is for the first time admitted to the ecclesiastical court proceedings (pp. 162-165). From then on, he (as well as the Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, Jean Prégent, who will participate with him in the examination of the “out-of-court” confession of October 21st) is present at all the proceedings, except on October 20th, when the application of torture is decided upon, and the morning of the 21st, when it is supposed to be applied. It is remarkable how, on October 15th, Gilles de Rais addresses him as if he understands his indignation and, on October 20th, asks to be heard by him (and Jean Prégent) in the absence of the ecclesiastical judges.

  * * *

  October 1 1

  * * *

  The Bishop and the Vicar of the Inquisitor adjourn the session slated for the prosecutor and the accused until the following day. They are satisfied with hearing for a third time, in the lower hall, the complaints and tears of the unfortunate people imploring them to attend to the “necessary justice” (pp. 164-165).

  * * *

  October 13 The bill of indictment in 49 articles

  * * *

  At nine o’clock in the morning, in the great upper hall of La Tour Neuve castle, before the Bishop and the Vice-Inquisitor, and before numerous Nantes officials, the prosecutor formulates the charge as it is written in the forty-nine articles of the bill of indictment; it is then read aloud to the judges.

  The first fourteen articles (the entire bill of indictment is provided on pp. 169-179) are nothing but preliminary: they are meant to demonstrate, in these circumstances, the Bishop’s, the Vice-Inquisitor’s, and the ecclesiastical court of Nantes’ qualifications. But Articles 15 through 49 finally explain the various crimes of which Gilles de Rais is accused. The statement is disordered and confused, but it is complete enough. Indeed it agrees — on the whole at least — with other facts provided elsewhere in the documents. (Nevertheless, the year of 1426 as given for the beginning of the child murders is contradicted by the accused’s confession; we should add that generally the dates given in the bill of indictment are hardly convincing: thus the Saint-Etienne-de-Mermorte affair, whose date, May 15, 1440 is established with as convincing a precision as can be, is attributed to 1438.) This bill of indictment considers three principal points actually: first, the crimes against children; second, heresy, or essentially the invocation of demons, combined with the practice of the magical arts and more or less dogmatic statements by the conjurors and other practitioners; third, the violation of ecclesiastical immunity.

  The indictment affirms that for about fourteen years (that is, since 1426) one hundred and forty children, girls and boys, had been the victims of Gilles de Rais and his accomplices. They had been led away, either by his principal accomplices assisting in his murders, or by procurers or procuresses. Various services to be rendered to Gilles de Rais served as pretexts, and the benefits that the children themselves — or their parents — derived from these services were emphasized. In fact, the children had their throats cut, were killed, and “shamefully tortured.” What is more, the accused practiced the sin of sodomy on them while they were alive, when they were dead, or when they were dying. Gilles de Rais disdained the “natural vessel” of the girls. In the end
, the victims were dismembered and burned.

  The indictment fails to precisely designate all but two victims, a child who was living in Bourgneuf-en-Rais with a fellow named Rodigo, and the son of a certain Jean Lavary of Vannes.

  It takes into account the conveyance of forty-five skeletons from Champtocé to Machecoul, where they were burned.

  The use of fine wines, hippocras, and claret, not to mention gluttony, are linked to the sin of sodomy insofar as they served the accused as stimulants with a view to practicing that sin “with greater abundance, ease, and pleasure.”

  * * *

  (1440)

  * * *

  The indictment records fleeting periods of remorse and whims of conversion by the criminal who wanted to change his life and make a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher, but did not know how to carry out his resolution and returned to his criminal deviations, as “a dog returns to its vomit.”