He stated that he had heard several people say as well that at that very moment in a wood near the said place a company of men-at-arms, about sixty in all, were waiting for the said Gilles, who had them stationed there laying in ambush. He also stated that while he was in the said church, he caught sight of three or four men-at-arms, wearing capelines or wallets123 on their heads, and other arms, going in front of the said church, and that he heard it said later that the said Le Ferron was brought to the aforesaid castle by the same Gilles, the accused, and his intimates, which castle the said Le Ferron restored or returned to the aforesaid Gilles, the accused, who incarcerated the said Le Ferron in the same place.
Interrogated as to whether, when the same Le Ferron left the said church, some other violence was perpetrated by the same Gilles, the accused, and his men, he responded that he neither saw nor knew anything else besides what was above noted. And the witness added that he had known the said Jean Le Ferron since his youth, and that, several years before he was thus conveyed and incarcerated, he had seen him in a cleric’s habit, having received the clerical tonsure, and that he was commonly reputed to be a cleric.
And he was enjoined in the usual manner to reveal nothing of his deposition to anyone.
2. Lenano, Marquis de Ceva, captain in the service of Gilles de Rais. October 19, 1440.
LENANO DE CEVA, marquis, of the diocese of Alba,124 forty or more to the best of his belief, a witness produced, examined the aforementioned day and year, submitted to inquiry and interrogated on the content of the article mentioning the violation of Church immunity, stated and deposed that the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, accompanied by Gilles de Sillé and Bertrand Poulein, arrived at the parochial and vicarial church of Sainte-Étienne-de-Mermorte during High Mass, after the elevation of the host and Communion; he did not remember the day, but he believed that it was on the solemnity of the previous Pentecost or the day following the feast; that the said Gilles, the accused, held a kind of sword, in French called a gisarme;125 and that he said to the aforenamed Jean Le Ferron: “Ha, ribald, you beat my men, and extorted from them; come outside the church or I’ll kill you on the spot!”126 Whereupon the said Le Ferron, on his knees and pleading, indicated to him that he would do what he wanted. And, frightened by the said Giles, the accused, he requested the witness to assist him and intercede for him, for fear of ill-treatment by the said accused. The witness made Le Ferron understand that if any harm should befall him, he would suffer it himself in like manner; and after a heated exchange of words, the said Le Ferron left the said church of his own volition, with the witness, following the same Gilles, the accused, toward the castle of Mermorte, which the said Gilles had previously sold to Geoffroy Le Ferron, and which the aforesaid Jean Le Ferron thereupon returned to the said accused; and the same Le Ferron remained a prisoner of the said Gilles, the accused.
Moreover, he said that the fifty or sixty men that the said Gilles, the accused, had assembled in a neighboring wood, laying in ambush, were to be charged with assaulting and invading the said castle if the said Le Ferron did not turn it over to the said Gilles, the accused. They were wearing mantles, which in French are called paletots,127 capelines,128 visored helmets, sallets129 and other arms. But in fact, he said, none of those who entered the said church wore a capeline, a sallet, or a visored helmet.
And he added that he had seen the said Jean Le Ferron in a cleric’s habit and tonsured, and that he was commonly held and well-known as a cleric.
And such was his deposition and he knew no more, except as public uproar would have it, which he said agreed with the facts deposed by him.
And he was enjoined in the usual manner to reveal nothing of his deposition to anyone.
3. Bertrand Poulein, mati-at-arms in the service of Gilles de Rais. October 19, 1440.
BERTRAND POULEIN, of the diocese of Bayeux, originally from Cantelou, near Caen, in Normandy, about forty-five to the best of his belief, a witness produced and sworn in, examined this day in the aforementioned year, submitted to inquiry and interrogated on the content of Article XLII, which mentions the violation of Church immunity, said and deposed that he, the witness, in the company of the aforenamed Gilles de Rais, the accused, Gilles de Sillé, as well as many others, on the day of the solemnity of the previous Pentecost, or the day following that same feast, but he believed it was the day of the said solemnity, entered the parochial and vicarial church of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte, in the diocese of Nantes, in which church they found the aforenamed Jean Le Ferron hearing Mass: to which Jean Le Ferron the same Gilles, the accused, holding a kind of sword called a gisarme130 in French, said in a rage, bursting with terrible threats upon the said Le Ferron, cried out in French: “Ha ribald, you beat my men, and extorted from them; come, come, outside the church, or I’ll kill you on the spot!”131 Whereupon the said Ferron, on his knees, said humbly to Gilles, the accused: “Do what you want.”132 And frightened by the said accused, the same Ferron asked the preceding witness to assist him and intercede for him with the said accused, fearing ill-treatment by the latter. To whom the preceding witness said that there was nothing to fear from this same Gillies, the accused, and that if he had to suffer some harm, he himself, namely the preceding witness, would have to suffer as well. Then, after the preceding witness and Jean Le Ferron had exchanged heated words, the latter left voluntarily with the preceding witness; who, at the same time as he, the present witness, headed toward the said castle of Mermorte behind the said accused. Which castle the aforesaid Ferron restored or returned that same day to the said accused, as the preceding witness attested. And the same Jean Le Ferron was detained there by the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, who kept him incarcerated for some time, there and elsewhere. And he said that the ambush laid by fifty or sixty men-at-arms was prepared in the name of the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, in order to assail and invade the said castle, which the same Gilles would have invaded had the said Le Ferron not restored it to him. However, not one of those who were with the said Gilles, the accused, in the said church when the same Le Ferron left it was armed with a sallet, a visored helmet, or any other offensive arm, save swords and the aforesaid gisarme borne by the aforenamed Gilles, the accused.
He stated, besides, that he had seen the said Jean Le Ferron in a cleric’s habit and tonsured, and had known him to be commonly reputed to be a cleric.
And such was his deposition and he knew no more, except as rumor would have it, which he said agreed with the facts deposed by him.
And he was enjoined under oath to reveal nothing of his deposition to anyone.
III. Depositions of fifteen witnesses on the subject of the public outcry. October 21, 1440.
Venerable and circumspect Milord JACQUE DE PENCOETDIC,professor in both courts of law, aged forty; ANDRÉ SEGUIN, attorney of the ecclesiastical court of Nantes, aged forty; JEAN LORIENT, forty, attorney of the secular court; ROBIN RIOU, attorney of the secular court; Master JEAN BRIAND, fifty; JACQUES THOMICI, merchant of Lucanie, citizen of Nantes, forty-five; JEAN LE VEILL, merchant, forty; PIERRE PLACARD, merchant, forty; GUILLAUME MICHEL, apothecary, aged forty; PIERRE DROUET, merchant, forty; EUTROPE CHARDAVOINE, apothecary, forty; JEAN LE TOURNOURS, apothecary, forty; PIERRE VIVIANI JUNIOR, notary public of the ecclesiastical court of Nantes, thirty-five; ROBIN GUILLEMET, surgeon, aged sixty; and JEAN AUDILAURECH, barber, all citizens of Nantes, witnesses produced, as above, admitted to take an oath to bear witness to the truth, and excused upon surety to depose in this affair or in the cases of this order, examined this October 21st in the aforesaid year, submitted to inquiry, at first separately and then together, and diligently interrogated on the content of the Fortieth and Forty-first Articles mentioning the public rumor; have said and deposed without discord or difference what public rumblings and clamor have spread and still spread in the city and diocese of Nantes, in the region of Machecoul and adjoining regions, namely that the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, had taken away many children, boys and girls, under fal
se pretences, and caused others to do so, and regularly practiced with them the abominable sin of sodomy, in a vile, shameful, and dishonorable fashion, indulging in unnatural lust with them; that he had cut their throats, and had their throats cut, and that he had had their bodies and cadavers burned by his intimates Roger de Briqueville, knight, Gilles de Sillé, Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, and Henriet Griart, and by several others of his accomplices, abettors and assistants associated with him in this affair; and that, performing the dreadful invocations of demons, he had conjured evil spirits, and, contrary to our faith, had rendered the demons homage, offering them the members of children whom he had butchered, and had others make such offerings; and that he had regularly perpetrated other crimes and other villainies iniquitously and perversely; and that, for this, the same Gilles de Rais, the accused, was and is notoriously defamed among honest men.
And such was their deposition, and they knew no more, as they asserted, so far as these articles are concerned; and these same witnesses were enjoined, in the usual manner, to reveal nothing of their depositions.
« PART TWO »
The Secular Court Trial133
SEMI-OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE COURT’S DISPATCH
Initial Complaints in the Appearance of the Accused
What follows is the trial brought against Gilles de Rais and those of his men and servants, named below, before the exalted and prudent Pierre de L’Hôpital, President of Brittany, appointed to this by the Duke our Sovereign Lord and other men in the council of my said Lord, and thus appointed by him, on the complaint lodged by Jean Jenvret and his wife, Jeanne Degrépie, the widow of Regnaut Donete, Jean Hubert and his wife, Jeanne, the wife of Guibelet Delit, Agathe, the wife of Denis de Lemion,134 Jeanne, the wife of Jean Darel, the wife of Perrot Couperie, Tiphaine, the wife of Éonnet Le Charpentier, Jean Magnet, Pierre Degrépie, and Jean Rouillé, living in the suburbs of Nantes or neighboring villages, and in several other places in the same diocese or elsewhere, declaring that they have lost their children and that they suppose that the said Lord and his men snatched them, or caused them to be taken, and put them to death; they say that the said Lord and his men are suspected of these crimes.
On this score, regarding the said complaint, an investigation and inquiry into the said complaint were made by the authority of my said Lord Duke and of Milord the aforesaid President, the tenor of which is provided below. The said plaintiffs requesting sorrowfully, with tears and loud cries, that justice be done, according to the necessity of the case, and the said inquiries having proven the guilt of Gilles de Rais, the latter being charged with the death of these small children and many others, authority was given to Jean Labbé and other subjects of our Sovereign Lord, if they could find the said Gilles de Rais, to seize him bodily. At which opportunity Jean Labbé and other subjects of my said Lord arrested Gilles de Rais in the province of Brittany, in the month of September, and previous to the present date, brought him to Nantes into the prisons of my said Lord. And it was stated and propounded to Gilles de Rais, on trial before the commissioners delegated by the prosecutor of Nantes, and by his lieutenant, that Cod’s commandments and civil law forbade a person to kill his neighbor and, on the contrary, commanded him to love him as himself. However, the said Lord took many young children, and had them taken, not merely ten, nor twenty, but thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, one hundred, two hundred and more, such that the exact number can not be certified; he had sexual intercourse with them, taking his pleasure unnaturally and committing the detestable sin of sodomy, the horror and abomination of every good Catholic; not satisfied with that, he killed them or caused them to be killed and, upon their deaths, had their bodies burned and reduced to ashes. Moreover, the said Lord persevered in this evil, and considering that all power proceeds from God and every subject owes obedience to his prince, who is prince by the power of God, and that he was vassal and subject of our said Sovereign Lord and swore fidelity to the same, as other barons did; by virtue of this, he did not have the right to undertake anything by his own authority, by assault, in the province of my said Lord, without obtaining leave and permission from him; notwithstanding this, the said Gilles de Rais, deceiving my said Lord and taking no notice of his will, had men assembled and assaulted with offensive arms the aforenamed Jean Le Ferron, subject of my said Lord, guardian of the place and fortress of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte in the name of Geoffroy Le Ferron, his brother, to whom he had sold that place and his title of lordship by transference, and to whom he had given its possession; and he had the said Jean Le Ferron led before the said place, threatening him with decapitation on the spot, which obliged the said Jean Le Ferron to surrender the fortress to him. The said Lord took and held that place for a certain period of time, although he was ordered by my said Lord, and by his court, to abandon the premises and said place, and return it to the said Le Ferron with the goods he had taken, under pain of a penalty of fifty thousand gold crowns, which would be imposed by my said Lord in case of disobedience, refusal, or delay.
Which order the said Lord nowise obeyed, laying hands on the said Le Ferron and Guillaume Hauteris, a duty collector135 for my said Lord, who was of his company, and he had them imprisoned, then conducted to Tiffauges, outside the duchy, where they were detained for a long time. And, since the imprisonment of the said Le Ferron, the said Lord had laid hands on Jean Rousseau, the sergeant-general of my said Lord, and had others do so, having removed his dagger and committed other outrages. After which, at Machecoul he had other sergeants beaten, in his hatred of my said Lord, in proportion to his scorn for the restraining order brought by the latter on pain of a penalty of fifty thousand crowns, in reparation for the said outrages. The goods and possessions designated above being in the safekeeping of my said Lord, the said Lord transgressed that safekeeping and violated his oath of fidelity, showing himself rebellious and disobedient to my said Lord and his court.
And the said prosecutor presented his conclusions, according to which, in view of the said inquiries and said charge brought against him, he ought to be condemned to suffer corporal punishment with regard to justice. Furthermore, the possessions and lands he was holding from my said Lord Duke were to be confiscated; and the said penalties on his possessions were to be executed.
The said Lord de Rais acknowledged having assembled men to take the said place of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte by his own authority; and resorting to violence, having laid hands on the said Jean Le Ferron to deprive him of the said place; he acknowledged that the latter had given it to him for fear of having his head cut off on the spot; that he had held the place thereafter until my said Lord Duke had his men-at-arms recapture it; similarly, he acknowledged having had the said Jean Le Ferron brought to Tiffauges, where he was detained until his liberation through the Constable’s intervention; he acknowledged further that my said Lord Duke had laid a restraining order on him, under the said penalty of fifty thousand crowns, to return the said place to Jean Le Ferron, which he had nowise obeyed. In view of which he would gladly conform to the will and order of my said Lord Duke, but he did not acknowledge having committed outrages upon the said sergeants, nor having had others commit them. Moreover, he disavowed the statements of the said prosecutor, who wanted evidence, which he was allowed to offer. Whereupon they had to ask the said Lord whether he would believe his servants, Henriet and Poitou, and whether he accepted them as witnesses. Which Lord responded that he would only tolerate honest men in his retinue and that, if he knew otherwise of them, he would be the first to see to their punishment. And he neither contested the witnesses nor gave his assent …136
II
INQUEST BY COMMISSIONERS OF THE DUKE OF BRITTANY
From September 18 to October 8, 1440.
September 18, 1440.
Inquiry137 and inquest with a view to proving, if possible, that the said Lord de Rais and his followers, his accomplices, conveyed away a certain number of small children, or other persons, and had them snatched, whom they struck down and
killed, to have their blood, heart, liver, or other such parts, to make of them a sacrifice to the Devil, or to do other sorceries with, on which subject there are numerous complaints. This investigation was made by jean de Touscheronde, appointed by the Duke, our Sovereign Lord.
Jean Colin (sic) is the first witness named that the Inquisitor received, September 18, 1440.
PERONNE LOESSART, living in La Roche-Bernard, deposes under oath that two years ago this September the said Lord de Rais, returning from Vannes, came to lodge in the said place of La Roche-Bernard at the house of the said Jean Colin, and spent the night there. The witness was then living directly opposite the inn of the said Jean Colin. She had a ten-year-old child attending school, who attracted one of the servants of the said Lord de Rais, named Poitou. This Poitou came to speak with the said Peronne, requesting that she let the child live with him; he would clothe him very well and provide him with many advantages, while the child, for his part, would be the source of numerous benefits for Poitou as well. Whereupon the said Peronne told him that she had time to wait to benefit from her son, and that she was not going to take him out of school. The said Poitou assured her on this point and solemnly promised that he would take her son and send him to school, and that he would give a hundred sous to this Peronne for a dress. Confident of his promise, she permitted him to take the child away.