CHAPTER V

GILLES’S TRIAL BEFORE THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL

_The Ecclesiastical Tribunal--Record in the Archives of

Loire-Inférieure--The Trial--His Confession--Judgment and

Sentence._

The ecclesiastical trial Against Gilles de Retz was of course conducted

by the Bishop. He was the representative of the Church in the diocese,

and he alone had the authority to act. His name was Jean de Malestroit.

He was originally Bishop at St. Brieuc, but had been Bishop of Nantes

since 1419. He called, as his assistants in the trial, to aid by their

counsel and advice, the Bishops of Mans, of St. Brieuc, and of Saint

Lo, one of the officials of the Church at Nantes, and with them Pierre

de l’Hospital, President of the High Court of Brittany, and whose aid

was asked to represent the civil law and to direct the charges, the

witnesses, and the debates in such manner that they should come within

the civil law. Three of the notaries of Nantes were made clerks, with

a foreign assistant. Robert Guillaumet was the executive officer,

that is to say, the sheriff or bailiff of the court. The prosecuting

officer appointed by the Bishop was William Chapeillon, the Curé of St.

Nicholas at Nantes.

It has been said that the Bishop, for a considerable length of time,

had been receiving and hearing complaints and charges against Gilles

de Retz, and that especially during the last month he had been

investigating their truth. In this he was aided by the aforesaid

William Chapeillon, who would thus have been entirely familiar with the

charges against Gilles de Retz. It was, therefore, eminently proper

that he should be appointed prosecutor. Whether the Bishop had the

full power under either the civil law or the ecclesiastical law, to

make the foregoing appointments of colleagues on his own motion and

according to his own will, is not here determined, nor does it appear,

in making these appointments, whether the accused was consulted or

whether he gave his consent, nor does it appear that he either took

or had the right to take exception to them or any of them and by such

exception deprive them of the right to act in his case. As to one

aid to the Bishop, Gilles’s consent was asked and obtained before he

was allowed to sit, that was Brother Jean Blouyn, of the Order of

_Frères-Prêcheurs_ at the Convent at Nantes. He had been appointed

as Vice-Inquisitor for the diocese of Nantes by the authority of the

Grand Inquisitor of France, B. N. Medici, who had been appointed to

that office by the Pope. Great stress is laid, throughout the process

wherever this appointment came in question, on the fact that Gilles de

Retz had consented to it before the priest took his seat on the bench.

Jean Blouyn was a man of about forty years of age, who seemed to have

commended himself for his moderation in making a decision, and for his

firmness in adhering to it. Abbé Boussard classes him as _digne de tout

éloge et apprécié de tout le monde_.

Another tribunal represented the civil law, and it was by this that the

secular sentence of execution was passed.

In France, as in all countries under the civil or Roman law, and

in some of the countries under the common law, there has been a

separate jurisdiction of certain offences for the ecclesiastical

court. As a matter of course, and necessary for the continuance and

good administration of justice, there would be some controversies of

which these two courts would have concurrent jurisdiction. It is quite

impossible in such a work as the present to go into this question.

Those who are interested in the subject are respectfully referred, for

France, to the _Histoire du droit criminel en France_ (pp. 74 and 85)

by Du Boys; to Faustin-Helie’s _Traité de l’instruction criminelle_;

Fornier’s _Les officialités au moyen âge_; Esmien’s _Histoire de

la procédure criminelle en France, et spécialment de la procédure

inquisitoriale depuis le XIII^{me} siècle jusqu’à nos jours_ (Paris,

1882); and for the general criminal procedure and jurisdiction of the

ecclesiastical tribunal, to Beiner’s _Beitrage zu der Geschichte der

Inquisition, prozesses_ (pp. 16–78). For a general history of these

subjects as applied to England, one should consult the great work on

the _History of Common Law_, by Sir Henry Maine.

The record of the process against Gilles de Retz in the archives of

the Department of Loire-Inférieure has been adverted to. We now come

to a point where it is almost the entire evidence. It consists of the

records of the two courts, one the ecclesiastical court, kept by the

clerks before-mentioned, and to which the names of some one or all

of three are signed for each day, either Jean Delaunay, Jean Petit,

Guillaume Lesne, or Nicholas Giraud. This record, made each day,

apparently was supervised and made official by the prosecutor, William

Chapeillon, and it seems that more than one copy was made of it at that

time. This was in Latin, though French was interjected occasionally.

The other record was of the civil tribunal, the record of the day’s

proceedings being reduced to writing and signed by Touscheronde as

Commissioner of the civil court, or by one of his aids, or, as they

call them, _assesseurs_, who signed, alternating with Touscheronde.

Their names were, Nicholas Chatau, Michael Eveillard, and Jean

Coppegorge. This record was kept in French, the vulgar tongue, and very

bad French and a very vulgar tongue it was. It would be interesting to

philologists to note the changes during the last five hundred and fifty

years in the spelling and, doubtless, pronunciation of the words of the

French language.

These two records of the trial, the ecclesiastical and the civil, are

treated as one, and their originals are filed together in the archives

of the Department of Loire-Inférieure in the locality designated as

Coté E, 189. Four copies of this record have been made, two in the year

1530, one of which was at the request of Gilles de Laval, the other for

the Sire de la Tremoille. The copy given to the family of Laval has

disappeared and no trace of it is known; the other for Tremoille was

placed in the château of Thouars which, it is to be remembered, was the

family name of the wife of Gilles de Retz.

This copy has taken its name from this château and is known in history

as the Manuscrit de Thouars. It was left in this château until its

existence was forgotten. When the château was bought by the State and

became part of the national domain, all papers and documents belonging

to the family were transported to the château of Serrant in Anjou,

of which one of the ladies of the family of Tremoille was mistress.

This copy of the record was in a pile of documents, tossed pell-mell

and without order, and here Monsieur Marchegay, the archivist of the

Department of Maine-et-Loire, discovered it. The Duke de la Tremoille

immediately took steps for its preservation. This record was on

parchment like the original, and comprises four hundred and twenty

pages, of which three hundred and three, in Latin, are the record of

the ecclesiastical trial; the last hundred and eight pages constitute

the record of the civil tribunal, and are in French.

Two other copies have been made in modern times, one for the

Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, made under the Second Empire, and one

for the Public Library at Carpentras, both of which have been certified

as true. The author procured a photograph of an open page from the

original ecclesiastical record in the archives at Nantes. It was made

on his personal application while he was Consul of the United States at

Nantes. These records will be explained in this work, and upon their

foundation rests the entire history of Gilles de Retz. Without this

record or its copies, the true story of Bluebeard could not be written.

Michelet (_Histoire de France_, vol. v., pp. 208 _et seq._), in his

description of the arrest and trial of Gilles de Retz, depends on two

manuscript copies which he mentions in a note; one in the Bibliothèque

Royale (No. 493 F)--the other communicated to him by M. Louis Du Bois.

The warrant of arrest of Gilles de Retz was signed by the Bishop on

the 13th of September, 1440, it was executed the next day, the 14th,

and on that day Gilles was thrown in prison. On the 19th, five days

after, he was brought before the Bishop in the great hall of the _Tour

Neuve_, in the château of Nantes. No information had been prepared, and

no indictment filed. The prosecutor informed Gilles that he was charged

with the crime of heresy and asked if he was willing to be tried before

the ecclesiastical court, to which he consented, and added, with a

defiant air full of assurance, that he would recognise in advance any

other ecclesiastical judges, as he had great desire to clear himself of

such accusation in the presence of any inquisitor, _n’ importe lequel_.

It was on this occasion that the Bishop of Nantes called to his aid as

an auxiliary judge, Jean Blouyn of the Order of _Frères-Prêcheurs_,

the Vice-Inquisitor of the faith for the diocese of Nantes, and then,

this business having been brought to a close, the session of the court

was adjourned until the 28th of September, when the witnesses would be

heard.

The record of this session is rendered in Latin, a translation of which

is here given:

(Translation)[3] “Monday, September 19, 1440.

_“Proces-verbal, appearance in court of Gilles de Retz and his

submission to the jurisdiction of the Court._

“On aforesaid Monday after aforesaid feast of the Exaltation

of the Holy Cross, there appeared personally in court before

the afore-mentioned reverend Father the Lord Bishop of Nantes,

in the great hall of the new tower of the castle of Nantes,

to give hearing before the tribunal holding session there,

the honourable Guillermus Chapiellon, promoter of cases

of office of the aforesaid court, reproducing in fact the

letters of citation enclosed above, together with the enclosed

execution of them,--there appeared this Chapeillon on the one

hand, and on the other the aforesaid M. Egidius, soldier and

baron, the accused. And this M. Egidius [Gilles], soldier and

baron, after he in his wisdom had perceived that the promoter

accused him of heresy, said that he wished to appear before

the aforesaid reverend Father the Lord Bishop of Nantes, and

some other ecclesiastical judges, also before the inquisitor

for heretical wickedness, and to purge himself of the crimes

laid against him. Then the aforesaid reverend Father appointed

for the aforesaid Monsieur soldier and baron, who agreed in

this, the 28th day of the aforesaid month to legitimately

appear before the religious, the brother Jean Blouyn, the vicar

of the inquisitor of cases of heretical wickedness, in the

afor-mentioned place, to answer to the crimes and charges to be

urged against him by the aforesaid promoter, ... to be tried in

things pertaining to faith, as is lawful and proper....

“In the presence of the distinguished men Master Oliverio

Solidi de Beauveron, and M. Johannis Durandi of Blain, rector

of the parochial churches, of the diocese of Nantes, called as

witness to the foregoing.”

[3] The entire ecclesiastical record was written in Latin with

an occasional interjection of French.

The commission of Jean Blouyn as Vice-Inquisitor was written in Latin

on parchment, to which was attached the great seal in red wax, which

hung dangling by two silken cords. It was as follows:

“William Merici, of the order of Friars Preachers, professor of

Sacred Theology, by the apostolic authority Grand Inquisitor of

Heresy in the Kingdom of France, to our well-beloved brother in

Jesus Christ, Jean Blouyn of the convent of our order in the

city of Nantes, salvation by the author of our faith, the Lord

Jesus Christ:

“Heresy, says the Apostle, is an evil that, if not cut up by

the roots by the iron of the Inquisition, will propagate itself

as a cancer in secret, and in darkness bring death to the most

simple soul. Thus, in order to proceed in the interest of their

own salvation against heretics, their aiders and abettors, and

the evil men, because of heresy or suspected of the crime,

against those who oppose the Inquisition, or who restrict its

free agency, it is necessary to proceed with great caution and

rare prudence. We have fullest confidence in the Lord that

you are endowed with a capacity, jurisdiction, and good will

to exercise this high charge. For this reason, by the counsel

of several of our brothers of which the wisdom is recognised

by all, we have made, established, and created to-day, and by

these presents we do make, establish, and create you in all

forms and with all the conditions required by the law and the

best authority which are in our hands, as our vicar in the city

and diocese of Nantes.

“By these letters, then, and by this concession, power is given

to you against heretics and against the culpable persons above

designated which may be there or otherwise. Also requests,

citations, interviews, interrogations, you can take against

all; you can cause them to be retained prisoners and proceed

against them in justice in any manner that you may judge

convenient, even including a definite sentence. You will have

finally all that by custom or by law belong to the charge of

Inquisitors; for in all this, as well as by the force of the

common law as by the grace of spiritual privileges enjoyed by

the Inquisition, we give to you, as much as it is in all our

power.

“In testimony of which, we have set our hand and seal to these

letters patent.

(Signed) “G. MERICI.

“Done at NANTES July 25, 1426.”

This letter was read to Gilles, and he was asked if he recognised

it. He declared “No!” It was submitted to, and proved by, the

court, and was recognised as authentic and genuine, and under its

authority Brother Jean Blouyn was admitted to a seat upon the bench as

representative of the Holy Inquisition and as judge in the case, aid to

the Bishop.

The session of October 11th was ended, and Gilles led back to prison.

On Wednesday the judges met, not in the great audience chamber,

but in the hall below, _aula bassa_. It was, and is, the custom in

the prosecution of criminal cases to have the investigation of the

witnesses before either the court or some high officer of justice prior

to the public or official trial. In this investigation the procedure

corresponds in some degree to that of our grand jury, or more properly

before the prosecuting attorney as well as the presiding judge. The

inquests made by the Bishop of Nantes, and with him his present

prosecuting attorney, William Chapeillon, during the summer preceding,

had been secret, the witnesses having been called up separately and

examined privately; but on this occasion the session was open, at least

to all witnesses, and, as Michelet describes them,

“a cloud of witnesses, poor people, came up single file, crying

and sobbing while they recounted the details of the abduction

of their children. Their cries and tears added to the horror

of the crimes which they recounted and showed the great sorrow

and grief to which they had been subjected, and the terrors

through which they had passed.”

The following is a record of this session, and the depositions of the

witnesses heard:

“Wednesday, September 28, 1440.

“_Procès-verbal de réception des plaintes._

“The register in the case and cases of faith, in the presence

of the Reverend Father in Christ, lord Jean de Malestroit,

Bishop of Nantes, and of brother Jean Blouyn, vicar of Father

Guillermus Merici, the inquisitor mentioned below, against M.

Egidius (Gilles) de Rays, soldier, lord, and baron of the same

place, under accusation.

“In the name of the Lord, Amen.

“In the year of the Lord 1440, on Wednesday, September 28, in

the third indiction, in the tenth year of the pontificate of

our most holy Father in Christ and Lord Eugenius IV., Pope

by divine providence, and during the session of the council

of Basle, there appeared before ... the lord bishop Johannes

de Malestroit, ... and brother Johannes de Blouyn, ... vicar

of Guillermus Merici, the inquisitor in matters of heretical

wickedness, ... and before their scribes, ... the persons to

be mentioned below, who, ... in tears and sorrows complained

of the loss of their children and grandchildren and of others

mentioned below, asserting that these children and others had,

by the aforesaid Egidius de Rays and certain other accomplices

of his and his abettors, been treacherously carried off and

inhumanly strangled, and that he had committed upon them sins

against nature, ... that he had often invoked evil spirits

and offered homage to them, and had committed very many other

enormous and unheard-of crimes of which the ecclesiastical

court takes cognizance....

“Of whom the first complainant is Agatha the wife of Denys de

la Mignon, of the parish of Holy Mary of Nantes, stating that

a certain Colin her grandchild, the son of Guillermus Apvrill,

about 20 years of age, small of stature and white of face,

having on one ear a birth-mark, in the year 1439 in the month

of August or thereabouts, on a Monday morning early went to the

house commonly called la Suze in the city of Nantes (belonging

to and occupied by Baron de Rays).... And afterwards she did

not see the aforesaid Colin nor did she hear anything about

him until a certain Perrina Martini _alias la Meffraye_, was

arrested and shut up in the prisons of the secular court of

Nantes. After this arrest she says that she heard it said by

many that very many boys and innocent children had been carried

off and killed by M. de Rays, she does not know to what purpose.

“Likewise the widow of Reginald Donété of the parish of Holy

Mary of Nantes, also complained that Jean her son and son

of aforesaid Donété used to frequent the house de la Suze

in the city of Nantes; and since the feast of St. John the

Baptist of the year 1438 she heard nothing about him until the

aforesaid Perrina Martin, _alias la Meffraye_, was arrested and

imprisoned and confessed that she had given him over to the

aforesaid de Rays and his companions.

“Johanna, the wife of Guibeleti Delit, of the Parish of St.

Denys of Nantes, likewise complained that her son Guillermus

used to visit the house de la Suze, and went there during the

first week of last Lent; and she had heard M. Jean Briant say

that he had seen him in the aforesaid house on seven or eight

successive days; that she had never afterwards seen her son,

and that she suspected that he had been put to death in that

house.

“Johannes Hubert and his wife, parishioners of St. Vincent of

Nantes, complained that a certain son of theirs Jean by name,

about 14 years of age, went to the house la Suze two years

before the feast of the Nativity of St. John of last year, and

then returning to the house of his parents, told his mother

that he had cleansed the room of the aforesaid de Rays in the

house de la Suze and had therefor bread in the aforesaid house,

which bread he brought home and gave to his mother; to whom

he also said that he was in favour with M. de Rays, and that

the lord had given him white wine to drink; consequently he

immediately returned to the house of Suze and was never again

seen by his parents.

“Johanna, the wife of Johannes Darel, of the parish of St.

Similien near Nantes, complained that on the feast of Sts.

Peter and Paul of the year before last, she was going home from

the church of Nantes in the evening, and a child of hers aged

seven or eight years was following her. When she had reached

the church of St. Saturnine of Nantes, or was near it, she

looked around to see her son, whom she thought to be following

her, but she saw him neither then nor ever after.

“The wife of Yvon Kyeguen, stonecutter, of the parish of the

Holy Cross of Nantes, complained that she had given to a

certain Poitou, a servant of M. de Rays, one of her sons (this

she did between the feasts of Easter and Ascension) to be a

servant to him, as the aforesaid Poitou asserted; the son was

about 15 years of age; and afterwards she never saw him again.

“Theophania, the wife of Eonette le Charpentier, butcher, of

the parish of St. Clement near Nantes, complained that Peter

the son of Eonet le Dagaye, the grandchild of the complainant,

ten years old or thereabouts, was lost two years ago, and

from that time nothing was heard of him until the aforesaid

Perrina Martin, _alias_ la Peliszonne, nicknamed _la Meffraye_,

confessed, as is said, that she had given him to the followers

of M. de Rays.

“The wife of Peter Coupperie likewise complained that she had

lost her two sons, one eight and the other nine years old.

“Johannes Magnet complained that he had lost a son. Wherefore

the said complainants said that they suspected that the

aforesaid M. de Rays and his accomplices were culpable and

conscious of the loss and death of the aforesaid children.”

The judges and those present and in authority were much moved by these

scenes, and they declared that such crimes should not go unpunished,

however high the rank of the accused, and they directed the bailiff to

notify Gilles to appear before their tribunal the 8th of October to

respond in their presence to the accusations against him. On that day

more witnesses were introduced, but their depositions were not written

out, or at least are not in the record.

The court was opened in the great audience chamber in due form and

solemnity, at about nine o’clock in the morning. The audience was

public, and the hall was crowded. Gilles was brought to the bar as a

criminal, and required to plead. He carried a high head, looking around

him disdainfully, as in the days of his power and strength. The bailiff

recited that in accordance with the orders given to him, he had the

possession of the body of Gilles de Retz, which he now presented before

the court. Immediately the prosecutor arose, and proceeded verbally

with the arraignment of the prisoner. It is to be remembered that the

methods of procedure in the courts of that country are now, and were

then, quite different from that of the common law courts.

After the oral statement of the crimes of which he was accused, the

prosecutor called upon Gilles to plead, to which Gilles (also orally)

declared his refusal, and demanded an appeal from the Bishop of Nantes

and the Vice-Inquisitor,--supposed to be an appeal to the Archbishop

at Tours or to the Pope himself. His appeal was refused immediately,

and his plea demanded. Michelet (_Histoire de France_, vol. v., p. 210)

justifies Gilles in his refusal to plead and his demand for an appeal.

“For,” he says, “one cannot deny that the judges before whom Gilles was

to be tried were his enemies.” Gilles seems, in making these demands,

to have intended to use the law’s delay more than to have had any

special hope of being sustained by the higher courts.

It is remarkable, though, to consider the value attached by the court

to Gilles’s plea. It was evident that when he did plead, it would be a

plea of “not guilty”; but this seemed to have had no effect upon the

judges or upon their course of procedure. They appeared quite willing

to permit the plea of “not guilty,” but were determined to have a

plea of some kind entered. It would be curious to trace the causes of

this solicitude on the part of the judges. The filing of the plea may

have been required for some purpose deeper than the appearance would

indicate; possibly it stood in the stead of the present rule of law

that requires the criminal to be arrested and brought before the court

in order to give it jurisdiction. True, the party can, in France, be

tried in his absence and convicted _in contumacion_; but this can only

be done after the party shall have been arrested and filed his plea. In

murder trials, no conviction can be had in the court of any civilised

country until the proof shall be made of the _corpus delicti_. It would

appear as though the importance of this plea was that it should be an

evidence of the presence of the prisoner before the court. It may have

been, in the eye of the law, a synecdoche, wherein a part stood for the

whole,--a plea standing for the evidence of arrest and presence of the

prisoner before the court,--which was necessary to give it jurisdiction

over the case. However this may have been, the court manifested great

determination to obtain the plea from Gilles. They gave him some days

to consider the matter, but he replied at once that

“none of the articles which you have presented against me are

true except two things therein charged; the baptism that I have

received, and the renunciation which I have sworn against the

demon, his pomp and his works. I am now, and always have been,

a true Christian.”

Upon the receipt of this answer and defiance, the prosecutor became

indignant. He offered his oath to support each and every one of the

articles he had presented. Turning to Gilles, he demanded that he

make the same oath, and in the same manner, that is, between the

hands of the Bishop and the Vice-Inquisitor (“_entre les mains de

l’évêque et du Vice-inquisiteur_”). This was demanded of him four

different times--he was begged, pleaded with, implored, threatened,

menaced with excommunication, but he remained strong in his refusal.

What a strange thing is human nature! This man had committed the most

fearful, inhuman, and base crimes,--crimes against the innocent and

defenceless,--and yet, when brought to the bar of trial, he insisted

he was a true Christian, and whatever else he might do or have done,

he stood firm in his resolve not to take a false oath. He could commit

murder times without number, and he seemed to consider the punishment

for this relating only to the body. A false oath taken before God

seemed to him to carry its punishment into the next world and to

imperil his soul through eternity. He was willing to commit murder, but

he was afraid to commit perjury.

The hearing was postponed until the 11th of October, to give the

prosecutor time to prepare the information which should serve as an

indictment and which had not yet been formally presented nor made a

matter of record.

In the meantime, public attention must have been greatly attracted to

the proceedings as they were progressing, and invitations went out to

all persons who had lost children by abduction within the specified

time and who had reason to suppose that the crime could be laid to

Gilles, or his accomplices, to present themselves before the court and

make their complaints.

Lemire relates (p. 39) this incident:

“On the 10th of October, a herald-at-arms of the Duke of

Brittany, bearing his livery, sounded the trumpet three times

before the château and then, in a loud voice, demanded that any

person having knowledge of the affair of Gilles de Retz was

summoned to appear before the court and tell what he knew under

pain of fine and imprisonment. No person responded to this

appeal.”

So great was the number appearing the next day in response to this

notification that the court was unable to proceed with the trial,

and consumed the 11th and 12th in its inquest, hearing and recording

complaints of the many witnesses. As we have seen, these witnesses

were presented before the judges, interrogated, and their statements

taken down in the form of depositions, to the end that they might be

included in the information against the prisoner. On October 13th,

having finished this work, the court had the prisoner brought before

it. The session of the court was held in public; the bench appears to

have been filled with ecclesiastical dignitaries, many of them bishops

from the neighbouring dioceses, with judges and lawyers; while below,

an immense pressing, pushing, exasperated crowd of bereaved parents and

friends, filled with emotion, added much to the excitement by their

declarations of the losses they had sustained by the abduction of their

dear children, and who filled the room with their cries against the

perpetrator of the crimes by which they had been robbed of their loved

ones.

The hour for opening was, as usual, nine o’clock. The first business

was a return to the question of the plea to be filed by the accused.

Gilles refused with greater hauteur than before, and pushed his refusal

disdainfully, ending by becoming abusive of the judges and officers of

the court, and conducting himself in a highly improper and insulting

manner. The following extracts are from _Procès-verbal_ of the audience

(translated):

“Thursday, October 13, 1440.

“On the above-mentioned Thursday, the 13th day of October,

there appeared in the court before the Lord Bishop of Nantes,

etc., etc....

“Then the same Lord Bishop and the Vice-inquisitor and the

aforesaid promoter, asked the aforesaid Egidius [Gilles],

the accused, whether he wished to reply to the positions and

articles against him, or whether he wished to say anything

against them or to take any exception to them. He answered with

pride and haughtiness that he wished to give no answer to the

positions and articles, asserting that the aforesaid lords, the

Bishop and Vice-inquisitor, were not his judges, and that he

appealed from them, speaking irreverently and improperly.

“Moreover, the aforesaid Egidius, accused, then said that

the aforesaid lords, the Bishop of Nantes and brother Jean

Blouyn the vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, and all other

ecclesiastical men were guilty of simony and were ribalds,

and that he would rather be hanged by the neck than to answer

before such ecclesiastics and judges, feeling it a grievance

to have to appear before them, ... and finally addressing the

lord Bishop, he said in the vernacular, ‘_Je ne feroye rien

pour vous comme évesque de Nantes_.’ ... Then under pain of

excommunication he was asked to reply to the charges made

against him, but he refused, saying that he wondered how it was

that Petrus de l’Hospital, the President of Brittany, could

have permitted that the ecclesiastics should be present at the

accusation of such crimes against him, stating that he was

a Christian and a Catholic, and that he was aware that such

crimes would have been against faith.

“Then he was formally excommunicated, and it was decided to

proceed with the trial, paying no attention to his declaration

that he had appealed, since such appellation was merely in

verbal declaration and not in writing, and since the enormity

of the crimes of which he was accused demanded immediate

attention.”

No progress was made during the day, and the court was adjourned until

the morrow, when the information would be completed and formally lodged

against the accused.

The criminal proceedings in France, while different from those

under the common law, yet still have some analogy therewith. There

is no grand jury, but in its stead is an officer now called _juge

d’instruction_. In this court no such special officer seems to have

existed, but the duty of examining the witnesses, as done by the grand

jury in the United States, was performed by the court itself, aided by

the prosecutor. Instead of an indictment charging the crime as under

the common law, an information is filed. The information is signed

and presented in court by the prosecutor, and while being prepared is

entirely within his control. He has, under the law, the power of our

grand jury of charging, or refusing to charge, crimes; therefore the

indictment is his. This information, instead of simply charging the

crime directly, and in legal language, sets forth the history of the

case, the jurisdiction of the court, the attending circumstances of

the crime charged, and ends with the usual prayers for conviction and

punishment.

The information against Gilles de Retz contained forty-nine articles,

and charged him with three distinct crimes: (1) the crimes of

abduction, violation, and murder of the infants named; (2) the crimes

of magic and sorcery; (3) sacrilege in having violated the ecclesiastic

immunity of the chapel of Saint Étienne-de-Mer-Morte. The information

was divided into three parts. The first fourteen of the forty-nine

articles were occupied with stating the jurisdiction of the court,

that is to say, that Jean de Malestroit was the Bishop of Nantes, that

he was properly and legally appointed as such, that he was under his

superior, the archbishop, whose ecclesiastical province or cathedral

was located at Tours; then followed the power, authority, and right

to sit, of Jean Blouyn, the Vice-Inquisitor; then the declaration of

the nativity of Gilles de Retz, his residence in the diocese of, and

duty owed to, the Bishop of Nantes; a declaration of the ecclesiastical

authority of the Bishop within his diocese over the château of

Machecoul and the chapel of Saint Étienne-de-Mer-Morte and, in fine,

a complete statement of all necessary authority over the accused, and

this part finished with the declaration that all things herein set

forth were true, notorious, manifest, and within the knowledge of all

and every person.

The second part of the information comprised articles fifteen to

forty-one. Article fifteen was a general statement of all the

crimes charged against Gilles and his accomplices. The names of the

accused were first stated: Gilles de Retz, Gilles de Sillé, Roger

de Briqueville, Henriet Griart, Étienne Corrillaud, _alias_ Poitou,

Andrea Bouchet, Jean Rossignol, Robin Romulart, called Spadin, Huguet

de Bremont, and the crimes charged were the murder of infants, killed,

dismembered, burned, treated in an inhuman manner. Then there were the

immolation damnable of the bodies of these infants offered to the demon

as a sacrifice; consultation with the demon, odious conduct, frightful

abomination, brutal debauches, and, taken together, a catalogue of

crimes, a luxury of offences that exhausted the prosecutor to qualify

in proper terms, and which, before a mixed assembly, could only be

pronounced decently in Latin and not in vulgar language.

He told of the excitement, dread, fear, of the people; the public

clamour that had sprung up from one end of the country to the other;

how it at last settled around the château of Machecoul, and that

every time an abduction took place some one of the accomplices of

Gilles had been discovered in the neighbourhood. In making this part

of his accusation, the prosecutor became filled with emotion, excited

in his address, and eloquent in his words. He described the conduct

and feelings of the people, and especially of the stricken parents,

of their cries (_clamosa_, for his first presentation and reading of

the information was in Latin), the loud lamentations (_lamentabile_),

the immense sorrow (_plurimum dolorosa_), the accusing insinuations

of the people; he showed the innumerable persons of both sexes and

all conditions, both in the cities and in the diocese of Nantes,

(_præcedentibus vocibus quam plurimarum personarum utriusque sexus_),

who, bowed down by the weight of their grief and fright, had appealed

to justice and to heaven with howls and cries (_ululantium_), and had

presented their complaints together before the seat of justice, their

visages bathed in tears (_conquerentium et plangentium_), for the loss

of their sons and daughters, bringing to the Bishop, the commissioners,

and the prosecutors the authority of their tears and their griefs in

support of this accusation.

Article sixteen commenced with the charge of the crime of conjuration

and invocation of demons. Over this the prosecutor also became

eloquent. His accusation was of an infraction of ecclesiastical law,

and he dealt largely with the law of the Church; his charges abounded

in quotations from the Bible (Fourth and Thirty-ninth Psalms),

adjurations from holy men, and was filled with many brave and eloquent

words in description and denunciation of the abominable crime of black

magic, conjuration, and sorcery. He takes up the Italian priests from

their respective places in their native country, and brings them along

until they are joined to Gilles in Brittany. In the articles alleging

crimes against infants, in article twenty-seven, the accusation says,

“and the number of victims is upward of one hundred and forty, and

possibly more. The articles of the accusation following set forth the

details of all these horrors; the action, conduct, and aid of the

familiars of Gilles and his accomplices; when, where, for whom, and

by whom the infants were taken, and their respective fates. These

were all set forth in great detail and with great particularity, and

article forty-one closes with the words: “These are the crimes which

make Gilles de Retz infamous, a heretic, an apostate, an idolate, and a

_relaps_.”

Articles forty-two to forty-seven were occupied with a recapitulation

of the crimes committed by Gilles and his accomplices, and in article

forty-nine he concludes with the assurance that by such crimes and by

such offences the accused had incurred the sentence of excommunication

and all other pains which follow the punishment to be assessed against

such culpable of being _auruspex et ariolus_, the doers of evil deeds,

the conjurors of evil spirits, their aiders and abettors, their

friends, their dependants, and, finally, all those who have delivered

themselves over to magic and the prohibited art. That the accused

had fallen into heresy, that they were guilty of _relaps_, that they

had offended the majesty of God, which was infinitely worse than the

offence against the priests; they had incurred, consequently, the

penalties for crimes against His Majesty Divine; they had broken the

commands of the Decalogue, the laws of the Church; they had sown among

the faithful Christians the most dangerous errors; finally, that they

were rendered culpable of crimes as enormous as they were hideous, all

of which were in the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nantes. And in the

closing sentences the prosecutor demands that he shall be admitted

now to make proof of what he has advanced, and this he will do, so he

promises, without further superfluity, reserving only the right to add,

to correct, to change, to diminish, to interpret, and to put in order

and produce any new matters if they shall be necessary at the time and

place convenient; and he demands the application of the punishment due

for this crime. The prosecutor admitted that certain of the crimes

set forth in the information were not within the jurisdiction of the

ecclesiastical court, and that they would have to be remitted to the

secular court if punishment was expected.

Gilles de Retz interrupted the reading of the information many times,

making denials in favour of himself, blaming his judges, and denouncing

the prosecutors. Everybody seems to have preserved his temper except

Gilles, and at the close of the reading of the information, the judges

turned to him and demanded his formal plea to the various accusations

against him. Gilles remained obstinate and refused to plead, and

demanded an appeal to the higher court. His conduct during the reading

was such as to destroy any sympathy the judges may have had. Bishops

and judges are but men, and it was too much to expect that the human

side of the court would hear, unmoved, this abuse and contumely heaped

upon it.

Gilles’s continued refusal to plead gave the prosecutor and court an

opportunity to exercise their legal power, and the prosecutor demanded

a decree of excommunication against Gilles for his contempt in this

behalf committed. This was an interlocutory order, intended to correct

the faults of Gilles during the trial. It was useless to imprison him,

for he was already a prisoner; it was useless to threaten him with

any other pains or penalties applied to his physical body; therefore,

the court, using the only other power it had as an ecclesiastical

body, issued its decree of excommunication, the only thunder it could

fulminate against him.

It is a curious commentary upon human nature, and throws a side light,

not simply upon the ecclesiastical courts, but also upon the human

nature of that day, that Gilles, who had committed all the crimes in

the calendar, and deserved death a thousand times if he had had that

many lives; who seemed to have no fear of any punishment inflicting

physical pain or discomfort in this world, yet was so filled with

dread of punishment in the next world, arising from the decree of

excommunication which he believed and feared would deprive him of the

solace of his religion and the benefit of the vicarious intercession of

his holy Mother Church that, as we shall see, it produced the greatest

effect upon him and was of the greatest efficacy in changing his course.

The decree of excommunication having been passed upon Gilles de Retz, a

postponement was ordered until the Saturday following, October 15th.

At the next sitting Gilles had had two or three days in which to think

over his condition. Brought to the bar, the Court put to him the

original question, “Do you recognise us as your legitimate judges?”

To which question, to the suprise of everyone who heard him, Gilles,

who had heretofore been so proud and disdainful in all his refusals to

respond affirmatively to this question, spoke out, “Yes; I recognise

the Court as at present constituted. I have committed crimes, and they

have been within the limits of this diocese.” With words of humility

and regret, his voice broken with emotion, with tears in his eyes, he

demanded pardon of the Bishop and Vice-Inquisitor for the words he had

spoken so harshly against them.

The Bishop, who had heretofore been dignified, reserved, severe,

as became a judge in the trial of a case, on hearing these words

of submission and request for pardon, turned the other side of his

character towards the repentant. He then became the priest whose duty

was to pardon, comfort, and console erring and sinful men; and when

Gilles prayed that his decree of excommunication be revoked, that he

should be re-admitted to the fold of the Church and again be given the

comforts of his religion, the Bishop granted the prayers, and received

him again into the Church, giving him words of comfort and good cheer.

When this scene was finished, the prosecutor asked for the progress

of the trial in the usual way. Gilles raised no objection, and

expressed his willingness to enter his plea and take oath to speak

the truth in all things whereof he was accused. The information was

read to him at length in the Latin language, and explained, section by

section, in the common French. Gilles responded to the first fourteen

articles, admitting in succession the powers of the Bishop and of the

Vice-Inquisitor, the lawful constitution of the court, and that he

was a member of the Church, and that the _venue_, as laid, was within

the jurisdiction. Being further interrogated, he, however, denied all

dealings with the Evil One, all performances of magic, all attempts at

sorcery, or that he had ever, either by himself or by another, sought

to have communication with the Evil One, or to invoke his power in

any way in order to obtain riches, power, or long life. He admitted

that he had once possessed a book that treated of alchemy and of the

invocation of demons; that he had obtained it from a soldier who had

been thrown in prison at Angers; that he had talked with the soldier

upon that subject, but had done nothing more--he had returned the book.

The record recounts how, at this period in the trial, the prosecutor

demanded of Gilles that they two, in order to be on equal terms,

should take the oath to speak the truth. They advanced together, the

prosecutor and the defendant, and putting their left hands between

the hands of the Bishop and of the Vice-Inquisitor, their right hands

bearing upon the Holy Evangel, they took together the oath “To speak

the truth and nothing but the truth,” as to the matter before the court.

This ceremony over, the formal plea of “not guilty” was entered by

Gilles. Then came the introduction of witnesses, who were, Henri

Griard, Étienne Corrillaud, _alias_ Poitou, François Prelati, Demontie

Cativo, Eustache Blanchet, Étienne of St. Malo, Steophanie Etiennette,

widow of Robert Branchee, and Perrina Martin, surnamed _la Meffraye_.

They were all brought to the bar by Robert Guillaumet, the bailiff, and

appeared on the side of the prosecutor and against the defendant. The

oath which the witnesses took is given in substance in the record. They

were sworn between the hands of the Bishop and the Vice-Inquisitor, as

Gilles and the prosecutor had been, and their oath was that neither

favour, nor resentment, nor fear, nor hate, nor friendship, nor

relationship, should have any part in their words; and they put aside

every spirit of party and all personal affection, having regard only

for truth and justice.

The judges announced to Gilles the privileges of cross-examination,

putting the questions himself if he desired to do so, for, be it

understood, usually in criminal trials under the civil law, especially

in France, the questions, whether they be by the prosecutor or by the

accused, have to be handed up, and are put by the presiding justice.

But as it is usual for the witnesses to proceed and tell their story

without interrogation, Gilles declared his willingness to have the

regular course pursued, and that he would leave the matter to the

conscience of the Court. This being done, the witnesses were removed;

for, be it understood, by no court practice in France are the witnesses

who have not testified permitted to remain while others are giving

testimony. The presence of Gilles’s accomplices as witnesses against

him must have given him an awful shock. As soon as the witnesses had

left the court-room, it seems that the condition of affairs presented

themselves to Gilles in their true light, and showed him his serious

and compromising situation. He was moved to great emotion, whether of

remorse or fear cannot now be said. He demanded, in supplicating tones,

that the revocation of the decree of excommunication should be in

writing, not simply by oral decree.

It would appear from such of the history of this great criminal as

we have, that the only thing which produced any emotion in him and

caused him to exhibit fear or dread of his position was this decree of

excommunication. The Bishop was in his forgiving mood, he had resumed

his _rôle_ of priest, and, very properly, he consented to do in writing

what he had already done verbally, and the decree of excommunication

was revoked.

The court adjourned until the Monday thereafter, the 17th of October,

when it was expected that the introduction of evidence would begin. The

examination was taken either orally (_viva voce_), before the court,

or by the clerks, or _greffiers_, who acted as examiners, or notaries,

and reduced the testimony to writing, reporting it or its substance

to the court. De Alneto, Jo. Parvi, and G. Lesne were _greffiers_,

and took most of the testimony for the ecclesiastical court; while de

Touscheronde did the same for the civil court, and it was reported

under their respective certificates.

October 17th was occupied with witnesses proving the crime of sacrilege

committed on the chapel of Saint Étienne-de-Mer-Morte. On the 19th the

witnesses were examined touching the crime of abduction of infants.

This interests us more than the other, and therefore we follow it

with the names of the witnesses: Professor Jean de Pencortic, Jean

Andilanrech, André Seguin, Pierre Vimain, Jean Orienst, Jean Brient,

Jean Le Veill, Jean Picard, Guillaume Michel, Pierre Drouet, Eutrope

Chardavoine, Robert Guillaumet (Doctor), Robin Riou, Jacques Tennecy,

and Jean Letournours. All of these were sworn, as before, to tell the

truth without consideration of prayers, or recompense, or fear, or

favour, or hate, or resentment, or friendship, or acquaintance’s sake.

Gilles again declined to cross-examine the witnesses; he declared his

willingness to abide by their conscientious declarations.

On the 20th of October the court was convened for the purpose of

hearing the depositions, and Gilles was asked, with many questions,

what response he had to make. He continually said he had none: nothing

to say, nothing to ask of the witnesses, and no witnesses of his own

to introduce. Practically, he made no controversy over the testimony

against him.

The ecclesiastical court was equal to a court of the Inquisition. Two

hundred or more years of practice by the Inquisition in prosecution

of heresy had served to formulate rules of practice. And here is

introduced one of the curiosities of human nature manifested in trials

of justice when they are started in a given direction. Recurring to

remarks concerning the legal necessity of obtaining a plea to the

indictment or information, in order, possibly, to show the presence of

the accused, and speculating upon that as the origin of the theory of

the common law requiring the personal presence of the accused in order

to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the proof of the

_corpus delicti_ in order to convict, it seems proper that a similar

course of procedure and reasoning should prevail in cases of heresy, an

offence which dealt so largely with matters of belief; therefore, the

ecclesiastical court, or the Inquisitor, whether established as a court

or not, deemed it necessary to appeal to the inner consciousness and

the private knowledge of the accused in regard to his belief, and to

that end put questions that demanded an answer.

As a matter of course, the prisoner, if a heretic, would refuse to

answer because he would not convict himself, and hence grew up (this

is only a suggestion of the author) a system which seems horrible

and revolting to all lawyers; that is, the application of torture to

compel the prisoner to make the necessary answer. No other punishment

could be provided, for the accused was already a prisoner, and being

punished as such. As nothing in the way of legal punishment further

than imprisonment would be visited upon him, the Inquisition fell upon

torture as a means of extorting a confession, and thus it forced from

the unwilling lips of the accused a declaration of his belief. This

would soon extend to include all his knowledge concerning matters at

issue; and when he should declare himself innocent, however true it

might be, the torture could be applied again and again, harder and

greater, until the power of resistance on the part of the accused was

overcome, and he would give up because of his inability to resist

further.

So it appeared in the case of Gilles. The witnesses had testified to

everything necessary to be proved; Gilles had admitted the jurisdiction

and the _corpus delicti_, had practically admitted his immediate and

direct connivance and assistance in the various abductions, as well as

the sacrilege; still, on his refusal to proceed further, the prosecutor

demanded the application of torture.

It was, according to our ideas, a lamentable condition of the course of

justice when the application of the torture should have been so common

a proceeding that, on demand of the prosecutor, it would be allowed by

the court, even when the guilt of the prisoner was beyond dispute. This

seems to have been the course of the court in the case of Gilles, and

the petition for torture, as made by the prosecutor, was allowed by the

court, and the next day set for its application.

“Et tunc idem promotor dixit quod, attenta confessione

dicti Egidii, rei, productionibus testium et eorum dictis

depositionibus satis constabat de intencione sua in causa et

hujusmodi, sed nichilominus, ad veritatem lacius elucidandam

et perscrutandam, torturam seu questionem dicto Egidio, reo,

per eosdem dominos episcopum Nannetensem et Fratrem Johannem

Blouyn, judices, et ipsum questionari debere, instanter

postulavit.

“Qui quidem domini episcopus et vicarius dicti inquisitoris,

prius habito per eos super his omnibus consilio cum peritis,

premissis consideratis, decreverunt questionem sive torturam

dicto Egidio _de Rays_, et eum torturam pati, ipsumque Egidium,

reum, torturis sive questionibus subici debere.”

It was said that the instrument of torture had already been put in

place, and for the convenience of all parties the prosecutor had chosen

the hall adjoining that occupied by Gilles, to the end that the torture

could be applied with as little trouble as possible, and whatever

might be the result of it that Gilles could be properly attended to

in case of need. On this demand of the prosecutor for torture, and

its allowance by the judges, Gilles’s courage left him; he became

frightened, turned pale and trembled. So full of fear and terror was

he, as scarcely to be able to speak intelligently. He threw himself at

the feet of his judges and, in broken accents, with cries and sobs,

besought and supplicated them not to put him to this test, making all

kinds of promises as to what he would do in order to escape torture.

He prayed for leave to make confession of his crimes, and to have the

Bishop of Saint-Brieuc assigned for that purpose.

It was agreed that the judge, Pierre l’Hospital, the President of

Brittany, should sit with the Bishop to hear the proposed confession,

and that the session should be held at two o’clock that afternoon.

Gilles agreed to this, as he would have agreed to anything else, and he

promised to make a clean breast of the whole affair. But as an evidence

of the terror with which he contemplated the torture, he demanded

(this seems to have been his only condition) that his examination and

confession should be taken in a hall as distant as possible from that

of the torture. The court agreed to this proposition at once, and the

two officials named were assigned the duty. The secretaries, or clerks

of the court, acting respectively for these high functionaries, were

Jean Parvi for the ecclesiastical court, and Jean de Touscheronde for

the civil court.

It is said that Gilles’s confession before these two representatives

of the ecclesiastical and civil powers was made in public, where

everybody who desired could enter and hear. This confession of the

same day is headed, in the records (archives), _extra-judiciare_, for

what reason is unknown; but, as there was a fuller, and apparently a

judicial, confession made by him the next day, which will be given at

length, the confession _extra-judiciare_ is omitted, the incident only

being mentioned.

The President of Brittany, Pierre l’Hospital, undertook the

interrogation of Gilles. He took up first the crimes against the

infants, their abduction and murder, and went through that with great

minutiæ, pushing it to all details; then the same with regard to

sorcery and the invocation of demons; the bloody sacrifices that had

been offered to the Evil One, as had been in evidence so many days.

Pressed to tell where this commenced, Gilles said it was at the château

of Champtocé, that the time was so long ago that he had forgotten and

was unable to identify it, except that it was in the year in which his

grandfather, Jean de Craon, had died. “Who gave to you, and how did you

get, the idea of committing these crimes?” “No one; my own imagination

drove me to do so. The thought was my own, and I have nothing to which

to attribute it except my own desire for knowledge of evil.”

It appears, from the report of the case, that the President of Brittany

did not believe these statements of Gilles’s to be possible. He was so

much astonished to hear this declaration that he pushed the examination

with great detail, and insisted upon fuller and more specific answers.

He approached Gilles sometimes from the legal side, sometimes from the

ecclesiastical; sometimes he threatened him with the punishment of the

secular arm, at other times he pleaded with him and held out the offers

of pardon from the Lord Jesus Christ; and by virtue of all these, he

besought Gilles to go back over the words which he had spoken, to make

a truthful and honest avowal of the causes which had led him to the

commission of these frightful crimes.

There were three languages employed in these proceedings; probably all

three were spoken by the higher orders: the Latin by the ecclesiastical

authorities, and that language was employed by the ecclesiastical

court; then the French language, which was foreign to Brittany, but

which probably Gilles and all those concerned in the trial understood;

while as for the common people, doubtless their knowledge was confined

to the Breton language. The confession of Gilles, reduced to writing

by the clerk’s secretary, not verbatim, nor pretending to be so, but

to have been written out only in substance, as is done in the case of

testimony before an examiner or notary who employs longhand.

While the President was pushing this investigation and

cross-examination so far, to the visible annoyance and great trouble

of Gilles, he cried out in French: “Alas, Monseigneur, you torment

yourself and me also, both of us, unnecessarily!” “No,” replied the

President of Brittany, “I do not torment myself; but I am astonished at

what you have said, and I am scarcely content with it. My only desire

is to have you tell the truth concerning the causes which I have so

oftentimes asked you.” Responded Gilles: “There is no other cause; I

have told you the truth and everything as it happened; _Je vous ay dit

de plus grans choses que n’est cest cy, et assez pour faire mourir dix

milles hommes_ (I have said to you all things as they are, and enough

to kill ten thousand men).” Then the President gave over interrogating

him, and accepted his declaration as true. He was sent back to his

chamber, and his accomplice, François Prelati, the Italian priest,

chemist, and alchemist, was brought out.

_Transcription of opposite page, being sample (photograph by

the author) of a Latin manuscript of the Record in the process

against Gilles de Retz, from the Archives of Loire-Inférieure,

Nantes, a page of his (extra-judicial) confession._

“hoc facere illo anno quo defunctus avunculus suus dominus _de

la Suze_ decessit.

“Item, interrogatus per ipsum dominum presidentem quis

eundem reum advisavit, consuluit vel instruxit ad predicta

facinora facienda, respondit quod hec de se ipso imaginatus

fuit, cogitavit, fecit, et perpetravit, nemine consulente

seu advertente aut ipsum ad hoc introducente, sed ex proprio

suo sensu et capite ac pro complicencia et delectacione suis

libidinosis explendis, et non pro quacumque alia intencione

seu fine, predicta peccata, scelera et delicta fecerat et

commiserat. Et, cum dictus dominus presidens, admirans, ut

dicebat, qualiter ipse reus hec premissa scelera et delicta

de se ipso et nemine instigante fecisset, ipsum reum iterum

summasset ut ex quo motivo seu intencione et ad quem finem

dictorum puerorum occisionem, cum eis commixtionem seu

pollucionem, et ipsorum cadaverum combustionem, et reliqua

scelera et peccata predicta fecisset, vellet ipse reus, ad sue

consciencie, ipsum verissimiliter accusantis, exonerationem,

et pro venia clementissimi Redemptoris inde super commissis

facilius obtinenda, plenius declarare: tune idem reus,

quasi quodammodo indignatus super tam sollicita et exacta

inquiscione dicti domini presidentis, dixit eidem verba que

secuntur gallice: _‘Helas, Monseigneur, vous vous tourmentez

et moy avecques’_: cui reo dicenti dominus presidens ita

dixit gallice: _‘Je ne me tourmente point, mais je suis moult

esmerveillé de ce que vous me dites et ne m’en puis bonnement

contenter. Ainczois, je desire et vouldroye par vous en savoir

la pure verité pour les causes que je vous ay ja souventes foiz

dictes.’_ Cui domino presidenti ipse reus tunc respondit, hec

dicens gallice: _‘Vrayement, il n’y avoit autre cause, fin, ne

intencion que ce que je vous ay dit: je vous ay dit de plus

grans choses que n’est cest cy, et assez pour faire mourir dix

mille hommes.’_ Qui quidem dominis presidens tunc omisit ipsum

reum.”

[Illustration: Facsimile of folio page from archives of trial at

Nantes. Confession of Gilles de Retz.]

Prelati had already confessed to the invocation of evil spirits, and

that he had made offerings of the blood and of the members of an

infant. Being interrogated, he made his formal confession, also reduced

to writing, but it turned out that this was only a repetition of an

informal confession, so excited no great surprise. The interrogators

seemed more interested in the invocation of demons than in the

abduction and murder of the infants. Gilles and François were brought

together before the judges and the Bishop, and upon the conclusion of

the séance they were sent back to their respective prisons. On parting,

Gilles turned towards François, and sobbing, embraced him with sorrow,

and addressed to him his last words: “Adieu, François, my friend. Never

again will we see each other in this world. I pray that you may have

good patience and hope in God, and that we will see each other in the

great joy of Paradise. Pray to God for me and I will pray for you.”

They tenderly embraced each other and then separated, never to see each

other again. This scene happened, and these two confessions were made,

before the two officers in private audience, in chambers, as it were.

On the next day, Saturday, October 22d, the _judicial_ confession of

Gilles was made, and presented before the court. It is herewith given

in the _procès-verbal_ of the session:

TRANSLATION OF THE CONFESSION OF GILLES DE RETZ.

“On Saturday, the 22d of the aforesaid month of October, the

aforesaid master Guillermus Champeillon, promoter, prosecutor,

on the one hand, and the aforesaid Gilles de Retz, defendant,

on the other, personally repaired to the trial before the

before-mentioned lords, the reverend Father, the Lord Bishop

of Nantes, and Brother John Blouyn, vicar of the said

Inquisitor, who had taken their seats in the tribunal there

in the aforesaid place at the vesper hour for the rendition

of justice. And acting in accordance with the assignment of

the day of trial on the motion of the said prosecutor, the

afore-mentioned lords, the Bishop of Nantes and Brother John

Blouyn, vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, asked the aforesaid

Gilles, defendant, whether he wished to say anything or make

any opposition or objection to (the evidence or charges)

produced or maintained in this case and similar cases. The

defendant, indeed, said and replied that he did not wish to

say anything, and fully and of his own accord, and with great

compunction and bitterness of heart, as was evident at first

sight, and with copious shedding of tears, confessed that

the already recorded [charges], elsewhere, as [mentioned]

above, extra-judicially confessed to, [namely] in his room in

presence of the aforesaid reverend Father, the Lord Bishop of

Saint-Brieuc, of master Pierre de l’Hospital, the President,

of John de Touscheronde and of John Parvi, as well as all and

everything contained and described in the articles inserted

above, will be and are true. And adding to his extra-judicial

confession already inserted and not receding from it, which the

same accused wished right here [to be considered] as repeated

and declared, and as he stated, rectifying the defects if

perchance he had omitted anything in it, and moreover more

fully declaring and enlarging, he freely confessed some things

contained in a summary form in certain of the afore-mentioned

articles, and said, to wit, that he had committed and

perpetrated very many other greater and more enormous crimes

and sins against God and His commandments than are contained

in the articles already inserted, from the beginning of his

iniquitous youth against God and His writings, and that he

had offended our Saviour Himself by the evil training he had

had in his boyhood in which he had endeavoured to perform

whatever pleased him with unbridled rein and had given himself

to everything illicit; and imploring those present who had

children, that they have their sons brought up and trained in

their youth and boyhood in religious instruction and virtue.

“After this confession, as it is already stated, judicially

given and made by the aforesaid Gilles de Retz, the accused,

of the contents in the aforesaid articles, and, [after] that

extra-judicial [confession] repeated and declared, the same

accused moreover made another confession of the following

tenor, separate and apart, in the presence of the reverend

Father in Christ, Lord John Prigencii, Bishop of Saint-Brieuc

and the nobleman Pierre de l’Hospital, the above-mentioned

President of Brittany, and of John Abbatis, the shield-bearer,

and of me, John Parvi, notary public and general examiner

of the ecclesiastical court of Nantes, a second of the

secretaries of [this] cause and of similar causes, and of

John de Touscheronde, also secretary of the civil court of

the same place, concerning the afore-mentioned perpetrations,

crimes, and sins, embracing the vices and sins mentioned ...

[all] iniquitously committed by him: not only as much as is

perhaps contained in the aforewritten articles already freely

confessed to, by Gilles himself, the accused, and in order

that said secret confession be more widely published, the same

Gilles, defendant, thought it proper that, without departing

from the said extra-judicial confession made by him concerning

the said charges, but rather to strengthen and corroborate

it, the confession itself be published in the vernacular for

the benefit of the people and all then and there assisting,

of whom the greater part knew no Latin; that, however, an

introductory remark be added informing those present that the

culprit submitted to this general revelation of his guilt in

order by the shame this publication and confession of such

crimes committed by him would cause him, the more easily to

obtain from God pardon and remission for his sins and to have

wiped away the transgression committed by him. [He wished the

public to know] that during his youth he had always been

tenderly reared, had committed as much as in him lay and

with nothing to check his inclination, all the evil deeds he

could, had centred all his hope, intention, and work upon the

commission of illicit and shameful deeds and had employed [his

hope, intention, and work] in unlawful acts by perpetrating

said crimes--most earnestly beseeching and exhorting the

fathers, mothers, friends, and relatives of all youths to

guide their charges along the paths of honesty by setting them

a good example and instilling into them sound doctrine, and

to chastise every fault against good morals to save them from

the snares into which he himself had fallen. By this secret

confession which was examined and publicly read in court in

the presence of the said Gilles, defendant, and approved by

Gilles himself, the defendant, the said Gilles de Retz, the

defendant, manifested of his own accord before all present

and confessed that he, led by passion and the delight he took

in satisfying his carnal appetite--of which mention will be

made later on--had stolen or caused to be stolen very many

boys--the number he could not remember; that he had put these

boys to death and caused them to be killed and that with them

he had committed crimes and sins ... [that he had killed]

these boys, sometimes himself with his own hand, and sometimes

through the agency of others and especially the above-mentioned

Gilles de Sillé, the Lord Roger Briqueville, soldier, Henriet

et Poitou, Rossignol and Little Robin, by various kinds and

modes of torture, some by the amputation and separation of

their heads from their bodies using daggers or poniards and

knives; others, however, with sticks or other implements for

striking by beating them on the head with violent blows;

others again by tying them with cords and fastening them to

some door or iron hook ... in his own room that they might be

strangled and languish. [He continued] that with these boys

even whilst languishing ... and after their death he took

delight in kissing, in gazing intently at those who had the

more beautifully formed heads and in cruelly opening or causing

to be opened their bodies that he might see their interior, and

that frequently, whilst these boys were dying, he would sit

on their stomachs and take great pleasure in seeing them thus

dying, and that he used to laugh heartily at the sight with the

said Corrillaud and Henriet. The corpses he caused afterwards

to be burned and reduced to ashes by the same Corrillaud and

Henriet and others.

“Interrogated concerning the places where he had perpetrated

the afore-mentioned crimes and at what time he had begun to

do these things and concerning the number of those killed

after this manner, he answered and said that [first he had

done so] in the Château de Champtocé and from that year on in

which lived the lord de la Suze, the maternal uncle of said

defendant; that in this place he had killed and caused to be

killed very many boys--the number he could not remember--

... the aforesaid Gilles de la Sillé alone knowing of the

matter at that time; but that afterwards the aforesaid Roger

de Briqueville and then Henriet, Stephen Corrillaud (_alias_

Poitou), Rossignol, and Robin became successively his

accomplices and sharers in these crimes. And he said that the

bones both of the heads and the bodies of the boys killed in

the aforesaid Château de Champtocé, as has been stated, which

had been thrown into the lower apartment of a certain tower

of that castle, he himself, defendant, produced from that

spot, placed in coffins or chests, and transported by water to

the place and castle of Machecoul aforesaid, burned there and

caused to be reduced to ashes; that also, in the same place of

Machecoul, he himself, defendant, seized, killed, and caused to

be stolen and killed many other boys in large numbers--how many

he could not recollect; and that, again, in the manor called

la Suze, of Nantes, which he, Gilles, defendant, then owned,

he had similarly killed and caused to be killed, burned, and

reduced to ashes many other boys of whom he could not remember

the numbers.... The same Gilles de Retz, defendant, narrated

and confessed that all misdeeds, crimes, and transgressions

above mentioned he committed and criminally perpetrated of his

own free will and accord alone, for the purpose of satisfying

his evil and iniquitous complacency and pleasure and not out of

any other motive or intention, with no one to urge or advise

him, defendant, or even to call to his attention such thoughts.

“Furthermore, he declared and confessed that, after the

expiration of a year and a half, the Lord Eustace Blanchet

aforesaid summoned the aforesaid François Prelati from the

country of Florence in Lombardy and invited him to the same

Gilles, defendant, for the purpose of invoking demons according

to the intention of the defendant, and that François, summoned

to the same defendant, informed him that he, François, had

discovered in the country whence he had come means of conjuring

up a certain spirit by the aid of incantations, which spirit

had promised him, François, that he would cause a certain demon

called _Barron_ to come to him, François, as often as the same

François might desire.

“Likewise, the same Gilles de Retz declared and confessed

that the same François made several invocations of demons

in compliance with a command of himself, defendant, both

during his absence and sometimes when he was present, and

that he himself, defendant, was in person present at three

such invocations of François who made them: One in the

Château Tiffauges, another in Bourgneuf de Retz, aforesaid,

and that concerning the third aforesaid invocation he did

not recall in which place it was made. And he added that the

said Lord Eustace knew that the said François was making such

invocations, but that the same Lord Eustace was not present

at these invocations, since neither the defendant himself nor

François would permit him to be present at the incantations,

as the same Lord Eustace had an indirect, evil, and restless

tongue.

“Besides, the selfsame defendant declared and confessed that

during these invocations there were traced as characters on

the ground figures of a circle and a cross, and that the same

François possessed a book which he had carried about his

person, as he used to say, which contained many names of demons

and formulæ for the making of such conjurations and invocations

of demons, which names and formulæ he, defendant, could not

remember; that the said François held and read this book for

about two hours during and for each invocation; but that at

none of his own conjurations or invocations the defendant saw

or noticed any devil, and that none spoke to him, at which he,

defendant, was much displeased and vexed.

“Afterwards the same defendant declared and confessed that

after a certain invocation made by the said François during

the absence of the said defendant, the same François on his

return from that very invocation informed the said defendant

that he, François, had seen and addressed the said _Barron_,

who had told him, François, that he, _Barron_, did not appear

to the said defendant because the defendant had deceived

_Barron_ regarding some promises read by the said defendant

to the said _Barron_ and because he had not fulfilled his

promise. Hearing this, the said defendant bade François ask the

same devil what he wished to receive from the said defendant

and that whatever the same _Barron_ might wish to receive

and ask of the said defendant, he, the defendant, would give

him--except his soul and life and provided the devil would

give and grant him, defendant, whatsoever he would ask. The

defendant added then that it had been and was his intention

to ask and acquire from the same devil knowledge, riches, and

power, by the possession and aid of which he, defendant, would

be enabled to return to his former state of dominion and power;

and that, afterward, the same François told the said defendant

that he had conversed with the devil and that the said devil,

among other things, required and wished that the defendant

present to him, the devil, a limb or limbs of some infant.

That the defendant, later, delivered to the said François the

hand, heart, and eyes of an infant to be offered and given to

the same devil by the said François, on the part of the said

defendant.

“Again, the said Gilles de Retz, defendant, declared and

confessed that before he, defendant, took part in the second

of the three aforesaid invocations at which he assisted in

person as is stated above, he [defendant] wrote and signed

with his own hand a grant ... to the bottom of which he

appended his name in the vernacular, videlicet ‘Gilles,’ the

contents of which, however, he does not remember; which grant

he composed and signed with the intention of handing it over

to the devil if and while he came, conjured or summoned by

the said François, and this he did acting upon the advice of

the said François, who previously had told the defendant that

he, the defendant, must hand over that grant to the devil as

soon as the spirit should come or approach: and that during

this invocation the defendant continually held that grant in

his hand waiting to hear the promise and agreement concerning

which François and the devil should come to terms regarding

the matters which the said defendant was to promise and to do

for the devil, who did not appear or speak with them so that,

accordingly, the defendant did not ever hand over the mentioned

grant.

“Again, said defendant declared and confessed that he himself

sent the aforesaid Stephen Corrillaud, _alias_ Poitou, along

with the said François, as François was one night going out

to make one of the aforesaid invocations. These two on their

return, drenched by a heavy rainstorm, stated to the said

defendant that during the invocation nothing had come to them.

“Again, the said defendant declared and confessed that wishing

to assist at a certain invocation which François proposed to

make, the latter expressed his dissatisfaction that Gilles

should then be present at the invocation. Returning from the

invocation, he told the said defendant that, if he had been

present at the invocation, he would have run great risk, for at

that invocation there came and appeared a serpent to the same

François which filled him with great fear: hearing this the

said defendant after taking and causing to be carried near him

a particle of the True Cross in his possession, expressed a

longing to go to the spot of the said invocation where the said

François claimed to have seen the reptile. This, however, he

did not in deference to François’s prohibition.

“Again, the same Gilles de Retz, defendant, declared and

confessed that at one of the three aforesaid invocations at

which he assisted, as is stated above, the said François

informed him that he, François, had seen the said _Barron_ who

showed him a large quantity of gold and, among other things, an

ingot of gold; but the said defendant said he had seen neither

the devil nor the said ingot but only a sort of gold-leaf

[_auripelli aurum-pellis_ (?)] under the form of a leaf of gold

which he, defendant, did not touch.

“Again, the said defendant declared and confessed subsequently

that when he was recently at the court of the most illustrious

Lord and Prince, the Lord of Brittany, in the Canton Jocelin,

of the diocese of Maclovia he, defendant, caused to be killed

several boys furnished him by the aforesaid Henriet, ... in the

above stated manner.

“Again, the same defendant declared and confessed that the said

François, acting on the instigation and during the absence of

the defendant, performed there, viz. at Jocelin, an invocation

of the demons, at which he learned that nothing took place.

“Again, the said defendant, setting out from Bituris, dismissed

the said François at the same Château de Tiffauges, asking

him meanwhile and during the absence of the said defendant

to attend and devote himself diligently to such incantations,

and to repeat to the defendant whatsoever he would learn, do,

and think in that regard; and that François wrote to him, the

absent defendant, as has been stated, in cipher, called in

French _par paroles couvertes_, that his transactions went on

satisfactorily and that at this time the same François sent

him, the defendant, a certain object after the manner of an

ointment lodged in a silver capsule and purse (_bursa_) also

made of silver, the said François writing at the same time to

the aforesaid defendant that this was an entirely precious

object and advising the said defendant furthermore in his

letter to guard the object solicitously. The defendant, giving

credence to this admonition of the said François, hung the

object with the above-mentioned _bursa_ about his neck and wore

it for several days thus suspended; afterwards, however, the

defendant removed the object from his neck and threw it away,

as he discovered that it would not in the least benefit him.

“Again, the same defendant declared and confessed that the said

François once told him that the aforesaid _Barron_ bade the

defendant feed, in the name of the said _Barron_, three poor

men on three great feasts, which the defendant did on a certain

All Saints’ Day, and only once.

“Interrogated why he thus kept in his house and about his

person the afore-mentioned François, he made answer that

François was clever, valuable to him, and pleasant company

because he spoke Latin beautifully and charmingly, and because,

furthermore, he showed himself anxious concerning the proper

administration of his affairs.

“Again, the said defendant declared and confessed that, after

the last festival of St. John the Baptist, a certain handsome

youth who stayed with a man named Rodigus dwelling in the

aforesaid Place Bourgneuf de Retz, was one night brought to

him, defendant, as he dwelt in the same place, by the said

Henriet and Stephen Corrillaud, _alias_ Poitou, and that during

that night the defendant ... caused him to be killed and to be

burned near Machecoul.

“Again, the said defendant declared and confessed that, news

having reached him that the soldiers of the municipal fortress

of Paluau strove to put to death the captain of the fortress,

St. Stephen de Mala, when, indignant at this, he, defendant,

set out with his men and rode on a certain day, which he did

not remember, from daybreak intending to attack the soldiery of

the fortress of Paluau, seize them, and punish them if he could

meet them, the said François, who rode among the others in the

retinue of the said defendant, foretold from the start of this

expedition that the defendant would not find on that day the

said soldiery of the fortress of Paluau, and that in fact he

did not meet them, so that the intention of the defendant was

frustrated.

“Again, the same Gilles de Retz declared and confessed that

he had detained in his power and caused to be killed two

apprentices, one of Guillemain Sanxaye and the other of Petri

Jaquet, named Princzay or Princé....

“Again, the said defendant declared and confessed in court

that, at the time of his last stay at Vienne (_Veneti_) in the

month of last July, Andrew Buschet handed over and delivered

up to the said Gilles, defendant, in the dwelling house of

a certain John Lemoyne at which the said Gilles, defendant,

was at that time enjoying hospitality, a certain boy, ... and

that he himself afterwards caused the said Poitou to throw the

killed lad into the privy of a residence belonging to a certain

Boetdan, close by the residence of the said Lemoyne, in which

residence or house of Boetdan the horses of said defendant had

been sheltered (_apud marchiliam_) near the market-place of

said Vienne, and that Poitou for this purpose flooded the privy

so as to submerge and cover the corpse of said boy, lest it be

discovered.

“Again, the said Gilles similarly declared and confessed that

before the arrival of the aforesaid François he had had other

conjurors of demons, that is to say, a certain trumpeter

called de Mesnill, master John Ripparia, a certain Louis,

master Anthony de Palermo, and another whose name he could

not remember; that these conjurors at the instigation of said

Gilles, defendant, made several incantations of spirits, at

some of which the said Gilles, defendant, was present in

person, both near the aforesaid Château de Machecoul and

elsewhere [and that he attended], principally to see the circle

or outline or sign of a circle drawn on the ground prior to

the incantation, with the intention of seeing the devil, of

speaking with him, and making bargains with him. But the same

defendant declared that he never could see nor converse with

the said devil, though for this purpose he had taken all the

pains he could, so that indeed it was not the fault of the said

defendant that he did not see the devil nor converse with him.

“Again, the frequently mentioned Gilles declared and confessed

that the aforesaid de Mesnill, wizard, informed the defendant

once that the devil, in order to do and fulfil the things

which the said defendant intended to ask and obtain from the

said devil, desired to receive from the said defendant a

grant, written, made by him, defendant, with his own hand,

and signed with the blood of one of his fingers, in which

grant the aforesaid defendant should promise to give to the

said devil whenever he appeared during the invocation of the

said defendant, certain things which he, defendant, could

not remember; and that the same defendant, for this purpose

and end, signed the said grant with his own hand, with blood

drawn from his little finger, and subjoined his own name to

the said grant, i. e., _Gilles_ [see p. 22]. That he could not

accurately remember the other statements contained in this

grant, except that he promised by the honour of said grant to

deliver up to said devil the articles mentioned in the grant,

provided that the devil would give or grant the same Gilles

knowledge, power, and riches. But the defendant is quite

certain, as he says, that whatsoever he may have promised the

devil by this or other grants, he always and decidedly made

exception of and reserved his soul and his life: and he says

that this grant was not handed to the devil at this time, since

he did not appear to the said Gilles, defendant, at or during

said incantation.

“Furthermore, the said defendant likewise declared and

confessed that once the said master John Ripparia made one of

his invocations in a wood or grove situated near the Château

de Pouzauges, and that this Ripparia, before going to make

this invocation, armed himself with weapons and implements of

protection to his body, and thus armed he approached the said

grove intending to make the invocation;--and that, when the

said defendant, accompanied by his servants and, especially,

by Eustace, Henriet, and Stephen Corrillaud, _alias_ Poitou,

aforesaid, started after a little while towards the said grove

and met the said de Ripparia returning from that grove, then

the said de Ripparia told the said Gilles, defendant, that he

had seen the devil coming to him in the guise of a leopard

that passed in front of him and told something to him, de

Ripparia, which, as he said, infused great fear into the said

de Ripparia. And the defendant added in his narration, that

the said de Ripparia, to whom the defendant had given the sum

of twenty louis d’or (_regalium auri_), took his departure

after this invocation, promising to return later to the said

defendant, which he did not do.

“Similarly, the same accused said and confessed that when

another invocation of the demons which the accused and a

certain one of the above-mentioned invocators, whose name

is not mentioned, and who was an associate of Gilles de la

Sillé, made in a certain room of the above-mentioned Château

Tiffauges, de la Sillé himself did not attempt to enter

the circle or circular sign made in the said room for the

invocation, nay, rather, he withdrew to a window of that room

with the intention of jumping out if he should feel anything

terrible approach, there holding in his arms an image of the

Blessed Virgin Mary; and the said accused standing within

the circular sign, feared very much, and especially as the

said invocator forbade him to make the sign of the cross, as

otherwise they, the accused and the invocator, would be in

great danger, nor did the accused for this reason attempt

to make that sign, but then remembering a certain prayer

of the Blessed Virgin Mary which begins ‘_Alma_,’[4] said

invocator ordered the said accused to go out of the circle, and

withdrawing quickly and going out of the room, the invocator

being left remaining there, and the door of the room being

closed by the above-said invocator, he went to the aforesaid

Gilles de la Sillé, who forthwith said to the accused that the

invocator thus left in the room was beaten and struck to such

an extent as if the striking was done by kicking. And when the

accused heard this, he opened the room right away, and in the

entrance of the room said accused saw said invocator [lying]

on his face, grievously wounded and weakened in other parts

of his body, among other strokes and blows then sustained by

said invocator, ... in the forehead and otherwise wounded so

that the invocator could not support himself, wherefore said

accused, fearing that said invocator by reason of that beating

would die, wanted and made said invocator receive the sacrament

of confession; he, however, did not die, but got well after

that same trouncing.

[4] _Alma Redemptoris Mater_, an anthem chanted during Advent.

“The said Gilles de Retz, accused, also said and confessed that he

commissioned the aforesaid Gilles de la Sillé [to go] to the upper

country to look for and bring to said Gilles, accused, invocators of

demons or malignant spirits. And that this Gilles de la Sillé, thus

commissioned and then having returned, related to the same Gilles,

accused, how he, de Sillé, had found a woman who occupied herself with

such invocations, and that she said to the same de Sillé that unless

Gilles de Retz would remove his heart from the Church and his chapel,

he could never fulfil his intention; and that the said de Sillé found

in those parts another woman who had said to the same de Sillé that

unless the said accused would desist and cease from a certain work

on which he was intent and which he desired to follow out, he would

never have a day’s luck. Also, said de Sillé had found in these parts

an invocator whom the said de Sillé proposed and began, as he said,

to conduct to the said accused, but that on the way, the invocator,

being disposed to come to the said accused, as he was crossing a

river or stream, accidentally fell in. Also said Gilles, accused,

said and confessed that de Sillé brought another invocator to said

accused and that he died without delay; in and from the obsequies of

such unfortunate deceased and from other previous difficulties, which

interfering he could not come to the aforesaid invocations and his

other damnable intentions; he said that he believed the Divine clemency

and intercessory prayers of the Church, from which his heart and hope

never deviated, mercifully preserved him from perishing in such risks

and dangers, and for this reason he proposed to desist from his bad

life for the future and to visit the [holy] places in Jerusalem and

to visit abroad the principal places of the life and Passion of his

Redeemer, and to perform other [penances] by which he might mercifully

obtain from his Redeemer the pardon of his sins. Wherefore, after he

had said and confessed freely and of his own accord the aforesaid

things at the trial, as recorded, he exhorted the people there present,

and especially the ecclesiastics who were present in the majority, that

they always hold in reverence and in the highest esteem holy Mother

Church and never depart from it, especially adding that had he, the

accused, not directed and attached his heart and mind to the Church,

he could never have escaped the malice and schemes of the devil, nay,

rather he believed that the devil would long since have strangled him

and almost have carried off his soul by reason of his enormous crimes

and sins; and he, moreover, exhorted every head of a family to avoid

permitting their children’s being clothed in soft raiment and living

in idleness, hinting and asserting that from idleness and excess at

table many evils spring, more expressly declaring in his own case that

idleness and the too frequent and too choice partaking of delicate

meats and blood-stirring wines were the chief sources of his having

committed so many sins and crimes.

“For which sins and crimes committed by him, as stated, he, Gilles

de Retz, accused, humbly and in tears begged mercy and pardon of his

Creator and Most Holy Redeemer, as well as of the parents and friends

of the aforesaid children cruelly murdered, and of all others whom he

had sinned against, or injured, both those there present or elsewhere,

and the help of the devout prayers of all Christ’s faithful and

Christ’s worshippers, both present and absent.

“Wherefore the aforesaid master, Guillermus Chapeillon, promoter in

case of said Gilles de Retz, accused, having the free confession of the

matter and the other facts legitimately proved against same accused,

immediately asked that a certain day and suitable closing day of

trial for same Gilles de Retz, accused, be preferred and assigned for

bringing [trial] to an end, and seeing to its being brought to an end

as well as for judgment and definite sentence [being pronounced] by

said reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Bishop of Nantes, and Brother

John Blouyn, vicar of said Inquisition, and by every one of them or

of those, and by those assigned and deputed to this [trial], and made

in writing and promulgated in [this] trial and trials of this kind:

or that said Gilles de Retz, accused, should state cause, if he had a

reasonable one, why this should not be done. Whereupon the lords, the

Bishop, and the vicar of the aforesaid Inquisition said that Tuesday

next was fixed, determined on, and assigned for the prosecutor and for

Gilles de Retz, accused, he not opposing it, to proceed to justice, as

it might seem necessary in this and similar trials.

“Of the aforesaid [things], said prosecutor asked that one and several

documents be made and drawn up for him by us, the subscribed notaries

and scribes. There were present in aforesaid place [of trial] reverend

Father in Christ, Lord Jean Prigencii, Bishop of St. Brieuc, master

Pierre de l’Hospital, President of Brittany, Robert de Ripparia and

Lord Robert d’Espinay, aforesaid soldier, and the nobleman Yvone de

Rocerff, as well as the honourable men, masters Yvon Coyer, dean, John

Morelli, chanter, Graciano Ruitz, Guillermo Groygueti, licentiate of

laws, Jean de Castrogironis, Peter Aprilis, Robert Vigerii, Gauffredo

de Chevigneyo, licentiate of laws, the seigniors of Nantes, Gauffredo

Piperarii, capicerio, Peter Hamonis, John Guerrine, John Vaedie, and

John Symonis, the canons of the Church of the Blessed Mary of Nantes

and St. Brieuc, Herveo Levy, Seneschal Corisopitensi, and master

Guillermo de la Loherie, licentiate of laws, advocate of the secular

court of Nantes, as well as several other witnesses gathered in [that]

great crowd, being specially summoned and called for the aforesaid

things.

(Signed)  “DE ALNETO. }

“JO. PARVI. } Notaries.”

“G. LESNE. }

By this time all hope seemed to have departed from Gilles. He had none

of the bravado that sustained him at the beginning of the trial. He

apparently had recognised his condition and had thrown himself upon

the mercy of God. One can easily understand how he was thus affected

while under the influence of the saintly churchmen by whom he was

surrounded, with their prayers and beseechings that if his body was

to be condemned for the deeds done, he should at least save his soul

from the fires of hell. When Gilles was interrogated before the court

as to the genuineness of this confession, and asked if he desired to

make any retraction or explanation, he seemed to add to, rather than

detract from, it; and believing, as was probably the truth, that he

could only save his soul by making a surrender of all his thoughts and

a confession of all his sins, he seemed to insist on having the record

of his crimes made fuller and in greater detail, so that none of them,

even with all their horror, should be omitted. It was during this

session that he used the remarkable words partially quoted in the early

part of this book, page 7:

“If I have so much offended against God, I owe it, alas, to the

evil direction that I received in my youth. I went, at that

time, the reins upon my neck, free to pursue all my pleasures,

and did not restrain myself from anything evil.”

And addressing himself to the parents in the crowd, he said:

“O you, who have sons and daughters, I pray you to instruct

them in good doctrine in their infancy and their youth, and to

lead them with care in the paths of virtue.”

The relief produced on his mind by his confession, casting off the

great load he had been carrying, caused his spirits to rise to a

contemplation of the situation, which produced a calm, if not a joy, in

the assurance that he had made his peace with God and secured a place

in Paradise. Apparently stimulated by this feeling, he grew eloquent,

and though some of the words may have been put into his mouth by those

who reported him, yet one can easily see that he was filled with

emotion, and that the thoughts crowded thick upon him because of his

belief that in this way his soul had escaped hell fire:

“Judged by the declaration that I have made here, of the faults

of which I am culpable, by the shame which appears in my face,

I hope to obtain more easily the Grace of God and the remission

of my sins. I think they will be easier forgotten in His mercy.

My entire youth was passed in the delicacies of the table, I

was subject to my caprices, nothing to me was sacred, all the

evils that I could do have been accomplished. In this I put

all my hope, all my thought, all my care. Everything that was

prohibited, everything that was dishonest, attracted me, and

in order to obtain it there was no means, however shameful and

disgraceful, that I was not ready to employ.”

Addressing himself this time to the public present, he said:

“Fathers and mothers who hear me, and you all, friends,

relatives, and guardians of the young whom you love, whoever

you may be, I pray you be watchful over them, form for them

good manners, set for them a good example, teach them healthy

doctrine, nourish them in your hearts, but above all, do not

fear to correct their faults, for, as I myself have been, so is

it possible for them to become, and so likewise, they may fall

into the same abyss.”

As he sat down amidst the silence of that awful hour, a visible

shudder ran over the audience; judges and priests, accustomed, one to

condemn, the other to console, both hearing these terrible confessions

of evil deeds, were visibly affected. Before any word or business could

be spoken, Gilles arose again to say another word:

“Whatever may be the perils of my soul, I am still not drowned

or lost--I am redeemable, and I believe that the clemencies

of God and the suffrages of the holy Church, in which I have

always put my hope and my heart, have succoured me with such

mercy. To all who hear me, clerks and priests of the Church,

I would say: love always our holy Mother Church, revere her,

give to her always the greatest respect. If I had not had this

reverence and respect for her in my heart and in my affliction,

I never would have been able to escape the hands of the demon.

The nature of my crimes is such, that without the protection of

the Church, the demon would have strangled me and carried me,

soul and body, to the depths.”

It is reported that, addressing for a third time the fathers of

families, he said:

“Guard you well, I pray you, to lift your infants above the

delicacies of life and the fatal sweetness of idleness, for the

excesses of appetite and the habits of idleness give rise to

the greatest evils. Idleness, the delicacies of the table, the

frequent use of wine, drinking, appetite, drunkenness, these

things are the causes of my faults and my crimes. O God, my

Creator and my well-beloved Redeemer, I ask mercy and pardon!

And you, parents and friends of the infants that I have so

cruelly put to death, you against whom I have sinned and whom I

have so nearly destroyed, present or absent, in whatever place

you may be, as Christians and faithfuls of Jesus Christ, I pray

you on my knees and with tears, to accord to me, oh, to give to

me, the succour and aid of your pious prayers.”

The effect of these words can be better understood than described. Amid

the impressive silence of such a spectacle, nothing was to be said.

The court adjourned until the next day, Tuesday, October 25th, and the

crowd poured silently and sorrowfully into the streets on their way to

their homes, each heart filled with the most profound emotions, and

each person cherishing the remembrance of the most solemn scene he had

ever witnessed and the gravest advice he had ever heard.

The session of the next day was to hear the sentence of the court.

It had been reduced to writing, and was read by the clerk, Jacques

Pencoetdic, an official of the church of Nantes:

“In the holy name of Christ, we, Jean, Bishop of Nantes, and

Brother Jean Blouyn, Bachelor of Holy Scripture of the order

of Friars Preachers and the Delegate for the Inquisitor for

heresy for the city and diocese of Nantes, in session as

attributed, and having nothing before our eyes but God alone,

the advice and consent of our Lord Bishop, the Jurisconsuls,

the doctors, professors of Holy Scripture here present; after

having examined all the depositions of the witnesses in charge

called in our own name and in the name of the prosecutor

deputised by us, against Gilles de Retz, our subject, and

under our jurisdiction, after having reduced to writing and

digested the depositions, after having heard his own proper

confession made spontaneously in our presence, and after having

weighed and considered these and all other reasons which can

affect our determination, we pronounce, we decide, we declare,

that thou, Gilles de Retz, cited before our tribunal, art

shamefully culpable of heresy, apostacy, invocation of demons;

that for these crimes, thou hast incurred the sentence of

excommunication and all the other punishments determined by

right and by law; and, finally, thou oughtest to be punished

and corrected according to the will of the law and the

exigencies of the holy canons, as an heretic, apostate, and

invocator of demons.”

The second sentence was in similar language, concluding, however, as

follows:

“Thou, Gilles de Retz, hast shamefully committed crimes with

infants of one or the other sex; thou hast committed sacrilege;

hast violated the immunities of the Church; by these crimes,

thou hast incurred the sentence of excommunication and all

other punishments fixed by law; and thou art, by consequence,

to be punished and corrected according to thy salvation and the

will and exigencies of law and the holy canons.”

All Gilles’s fears returned when he realised that he was to be

convicted of heresy and condemned to excommunication. Falling on his

knees, tears in his eyes, trembling, he humbly pleaded and begged the

judges to lift from his life, now so near ended and so worthless, this

excommunication. After consultation together, it was determined by the

Bishop and the Vice-Inquisitor to grant this prayer, and the decree of

excommunication was annulled in the usual form. Gilles was admitted to

the administration of the Holy Sacraments, and permission given him to

commune with the faithful. Gilles immediately demanded the appointment

of a priest to hear him in confession, that he might profess his

penitence and receive absolution from his sins, and the Frère Jean

Juvenal, a Carmelite of Plouarmel, was designated for that purpose.

So terminated the ecclesiastical trial of Gilles de Retz. It commenced

on the 17th of September and lasted one month and eight days. It ended

in his conviction of the only crimes of which the ecclesiastical court

had jurisdiction, to wit, heresy, apostacy, and invocation of demons.

The sentence was excommunication, which, we have seen, was lifted, and

the final outcome of this trial was the repentance of Gilles de Retz.

Now we turn to the process instituted by the civil tribunal for the

trial of Gilles upon other charges than those of which he was convicted

by the ecclesiastical court. The usual close of the sentence of an

ecclesiastical court, wherein the accused was charged with other crimes

than those with which the court had jurisdiction, would be: “Go in

peace, the Church can no longer defend thee, she delivers thee to the

secular arm” (_bras séculier_). But this declaration was not made; it

was useless, for it was well known to the judges that the civil court

had already been organised and had taken cognisance and jurisdiction

of the various crimes of Gilles, such as had been charged and so well

proved before the ecclesiastical court.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]