Trial of Gilles De Rais

by George Bataille

  * * *

  Hearing of complaints in Gilles de Rais’ absence, whose second appearance is adjourned to October 8.

  * * *

  In the name of the Lord, amen.

  Wednesday, September 28, 1440, the tenth year of the pontificate of the Most Holy Father in God, Monsignor Eugène, by Divine Providence Pope, the fourth of that name, and during the general council of Basel, before the Reverend Father of God, Lord Jean de Malestroit, by the grace of God and the Holy Apostolic See, Bishop of Nantes, and before the male religious, Friar Jean Blouyn, of the Dominican Order, bachelor of Holy Writ, and Vicar of the male religious, Friar Guillaume Mérici, of the aforesaid Dominican Order, professor of theology, Inquisitor into Heresy in the realm of France, delegated by apostolic authority and by this same Friar Guillaume, specially appointed to the office of inquisitor in the city and diocese of Nantes, presently in the chapel of the episcopal manor of Nantes and in the presence of us: Jean Delaunay,66 Jean Petit, Nicolas Géraud, and Guillaume Lesné, notaries public and scribes before the same in the case and the cases of this order, expected to write faithfully before these same Lords Bishop and Vice-Inquisitor aforesaid on each and every one of the things that occur in the said cases, and, finally, deputized and entrusted to draw this up in a public form, according as they deputized all and every one of us; and in the presence of the witnesses inscribed below, personally appeared the persons named below who exposed to the said Lords Bishop and the aforesaid Vice-Inquisitor, while complaining tearfully and grievously, the loss of their sons, nephews, and others, assuring that the said sons, nephews, and others had been treacherously seized and then inhumanly butchered and massacred by the said Gilles de Rais and certain of his accomplices, abettors, followers, and familiars; that the same had abused them shamefully and unnaturally and that they had wickedly committed the sin of sodomy on them; that they had many times both summoned evil spirits and rendered them homage; that they had perpetrated many other enormous and unusual crimes and offenses as far as ecclesiastical jurisdiction is concerned; which plaintiffs humbly supplicated the said Reverend Lords Bishop of Nantes and Friar Jean Blouyn, Vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, to deign to apply a swift, just, and timely remedy to the above appeal.

  Agathe, the wife of Denis de Lemion, a parishioner of Notre-Dame-de-Nantes, complained that Colin, her nephew, the son of Guillaume Avril, aged about twenty, who was of small build and pale complexion, so she says, having a particular mark on one of his ears similar to a small ear, left one morning in August 1439, or thereabouts, for the house called La Suze, in Nantes, relatively near the church of Notre-Dame. Which house then belonged to Lord de Rais. And afterwards she never saw the said Colin again and had no more news, until the day when a certain Perrine Martin, known as La Meffraye, was arrested and imprisoned by the secular court of Nantes. After whose arrest, she heard it said by many, and this was the public rumor, that a number of children and young men had been taken and killed by the said Lord de Rais. She does not know for what end.

  Item, the widow of the late Regnaud Donete, a parishioner of Notre-Dame-de-Nantes, also complained that Jean, her son, frequented the said house of La Suze and, since Saint John the Baptist’s Day in 1438, she had heard no more news of him, until Perrine Martin, known as La Meffraye, arrested and imprisoned as noted above, confessed that her son had been handed over to the same Lord de Rais and his men.

  Jeanne, the wife of Guibelet Delit, a parishioner of Saint-Denis-de-Nantes, complained similarly that Guillaume, her son, frequented the same house of La Suze and that he had gone there during the first week of last Easter. And she heard Master Jean Briand say that he had seen Guillaume in the same house seven or eight days consecutively, and that then he no longer saw her son; moreover, he suspected that her son had disappeared in the same house.

  Jean Hubert and his wife, parishioners of Saint-Vincent, of Nantes, complained that one of their boys, named Jean, aged about fourteen, two years ago last Saint John the Baptist’s Day, entered the house of La Suze and returned to his parents’ house; and he told his mother that he had cleaned the said Lord’s room in the house of La Suze, for which he was given a loaf of bread that he carried home and gave her; he told her also that he was in the good graces of the said Lord, who had made him drink some white wine. Once he returned to the house of La Suze, his parents never saw him again.

  Jeanne, the wife of Jean Darel, a parishioner of Saint-Similien, near Nantes, complained that on the previous solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, she was returning home around eventide from Notre-Dame-de-Nantes, followed by her son, aged seven or eight, and in the proximity of Saint-Saturnin, of Nantes, she turned about, thinking that he had been following her all that way and was continuously in her company, but she did not see him any more and never has seen him again since.

  The widow of Yvon Kerguen, stonecutter, a parishioner of Sainte-Croix, of Nantes, complained that she gave her son to a man named Poitou, a servant of the said Lord de Rais, who had asked her between Easter and last Ascension Day for him to be admitted into the latter’s service, as the same Poitou conformed, which son was about fifteen years old; and she has never seen him again since.

  * * *

  (Hearing of complaints in Gilles de Rais’ absence, whose second appearance is adjourned to October 8).

  * * *

  Tiphaine, the wife of Éonnet Le Charpentier, butcher, a parishioner of Saint-Clément, near Nantes, complained that her nephew Pierre, the son of Éonnet Dagaie, aged ten, was lost about two years ago and that since this time, she has had no news of him until Perrine Martin, also known as La Pellissonne, admitted, as has been said, that she had delivered him over to Lord de Rais’ men.

  The wife of Pierre Couperie equally complained that she had lost two of her sons, one eight years old, the other nine.

  Jean Magnet complained that he had lost one of his sons. The same plaintiffs suspected and said that they suspected the same Lord de Rais and his accomplices of having been, and being, knowingly guilty of the loss and murder of the same children.

  Which complaints having been brought to the knowledge of the said Lords Jean, Reverend Father in God, Bishop of Nantes, and Friar Jean Blouyn, said Vice-Inquisitor, the same Lords Bishop and Vicar having been informed, insisting that these misdeeds should not go unpunished, peremptorily decreed and mandated all clerics to summon the same Lord Gilles de Rais, Saturday, October 8th, to respond as by law to the said Lord Bishop of Nantes and said Friar Jean Blouyn, Vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, and for whatever he might have to object to by way of defense in the name of the faith; as well as the prosecutor by them appointed in the case and in the cases of this order.

  Done September 28th, in the year of the same said pontificate and said council.

  In the presence of the venerable and circumspect persons, Jacques de Pencoëtdic, doctor in both civil and ecclesiastical law, official of Nantes, and Jean Blanchet, bachelor of law, cleric in the Nantes diocese, as well as of many other witnesses called to this and expressly requested.

  [Signed: Jean Delaunay, Jean Petit, G. Lesné.

  Saturday, October 8, 1440.

  * * *

  Second appearance by Gilles de Rais. Record of the “litis contestatio.”

  * * *

  Thereafter, October 8th, in the year of the aforesaid pontificate and council, the said plaintiffs again appeared in person before the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor in the lower hall of La Tour Neuve in Nantes, and complained anew to the said Lords Bishop of Nantes and the aforesaid Vice-Inquisitor, clamorously, grievously, and tearfully, of the loss of their children, asserting, as above, that these had been taken by the said Lord de Rais and his accomplices and adherents, who had maliciously abused them sodomitically and practiced on them the sin of sodomy; and they had called up evil spirits, rendered them homage, and committed many other crimes concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which plaintiffs humbly supplicated the said Reverend Father in God, Bishop of Nantes, and said Fr
iar Jean Blouyn, aforesaid Vicar, to be willing in this to provide a timely and lawful remedy.

  In the year of and during the aforesaid pontificate and general council of Basel, Saturday, October 8th, in trial before the Reverend Father in God, Lord Jean de Malestroit, Bishop of Nantes, and Friar Jean Blouyn, bachelor of Holy Writ, the aforesaid Vicar, sitting on the bench to administer the law, in the morning, at the hour of Terce, in the great upper hall of the castle of La Tour Neuve in Nantes, specially destined to the expedition and decision of the cases of this order, and in the presence of us, Jean Delaunay, Jean Petit, Nicolas Géraud, and Guillaume Lesné, notaries public and scribes for the case and the cases of this order, before the same, and in the presence of the aforesaid scribes and witnesses, the honorable Master Guillaume Chapeillon, case prosecutor of the ecclesiastical court of the place, specially called to the case and the cases of the faith by the same Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor, plaintiff, on the one side, and Milord Gilles de Rais, knight, baron and lord of this same region, accused or defendant, on the other, personally appeared, by mandate of the said Reverend Father and Vicar of the Inquisitor this Saturday, October 8th, peremptorily summoned to appear before them by the discreet fellow Robin Guillaumet, cleric, who to the said Lord Bishop and Vice-Inquisitor and to us, aforesaid notaries public, reported verbally to have peremptorily summoned the same Lord Gilles, the accused, personally apprehended, before these same Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor, and the said prosecutor because of faith, and faith’s moving us thereunto, in the abovesaid form and manner; and yet the said prosecutor reproduced the aforesaid summons in the name of the said Reverend Father Bishop and said Vice-Inquisitor, with its duly performed execution.

  Against which Gilles de Rais the said prosecutor verbally pronounced the articles of the bill of indictment, reserving providing them in writing until a more favorable time and place. And the said prosecutor proposed, pronounced, and affirmed in fact verbally against the same Gilles, the accused, all and every particular of the things contained in the circumstances and articles provided below. Which Gilles, the accused, then said, verbally and not in writing, that he was appealing to the Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor as well as to the prosecutor. He was immediately told by the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor that this kind of appeal, because it was frivolous and not presented in writing, taking into account the nature of the case and the cases of this order, could not be complied with by law; that is why the same Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor did not comply in the least, attesting to the said Gilles that they had not overruled and did not intend to overrule him malevolently; nevertheless they declared that proceedings would subsequently be brought against the said Gilles by themselves and by the said prosecutor, by reason of faith and faith’s moving them thereunto. Instantly the said Gilles, the accused, denied the truth of the said articles, contesting that there was anything to proceed with, unless it were that he confessed to having received the sacrament of baptism and to having renounced the devil and his ceremonies, making assurances of his having been and being a true Christian; upon which positions and articles thus denied, in the case and the cases of this order, the prosecutor swore that he himself was telling the truth, and not calumniating; and at the prosecutor’s insistence the said Gilles, the accused, was asked to take the same oath, which the said Gilles, the accused, having been requested to do by all entreaties, warned and called upon one, two, three, and four times by the same Lords Bishop and Vicar, and threatened with lawful excommunication, declined and refused.

  * * *

  (Second appearance by Gilles de Rais. Record of the “litis contestatio”).

  * * *

  Notwithstanding which, at the insistence and request of the said prosecutor, the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor fixed and assigned the following Tuesday for the same prosecutor and Gilles de Rais, present, hearing, and understanding, to state and enumerate and to see stated and enumerated in the case and the cases of this order, and to summon the said Gilles, the accused, to respond, and to proceed subsequently as by law.

  Of which the said prosecutor requires us, the aforesaid notaries public and scribes, to draft one and several public instruments.

  In this place in the presence of the Reverend Father in God, Milord Jean Prégent, Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, honorable and discreet gentlemen Master Pierre de L’Hôpital, President of Britanny, licensed in law, Robert de La Rivière, licensed in both courts of law, Hervé Levy, of the Léon diocese, seneschal of Quimper, Jean Chauvin, burgher of Nantes, Geoffroy Piperier, treasurer2 of Notre-Dame-de-Nantes, Gatien Ruytz 2 Translator’s note: Chefcier, or chevecier, has more complexity than “treasurer.” According to E. Littré (Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1876), a chevecier was a “dignitary who attended to the chevet of the church, that is to say, the apse of the church … the same as the treasurer in other churches, because he guarded the treasure of the church; he also attended to the lighting of the church; and his rare knowledge, as simple churchwarden, raised him by degrees to the rank of chevecier.” and Guillaume Groygnet, both licensed in law, Olivier Solidé and Jean de Châteaugiron, both ecclesiastical canons of Nantes, Robert Piperier, seneschal, Jean Guiolé, allocated to Nantes, and Jean de La Grangiére, allocated to the court of Nantes, and many other witnesses assembled there in large numbers, called and requested in particular.

  [Signed:] Jean Delaunay, J. Petit, G. Lesné.

  Tuesday, October 11, 1440.

  * * *

  Gilles de Rais’ appearance adjourned to the following Thursday.

  * * *

  On Tuesday, October 11th, which had been assigned for the prosecutor and Gilles de Rais, the accused, by the aforesaid Bishop of Nantes and Friar Jean Blouyn, the Vicar of the Inquisitor, the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor, being certain of the cases stated, did not sit on the bench to administer the law; rather they adjourned the session scheduled for this Tuesday to the following Thursday and assigned that day for the same prosecutor and Gilles, the accused, so as subsequently to proceed in the case and the cases of this order, as by law.

  On which October 11th, the aforesaid men and women complained grievously and tearfully anew to the said Bishop of Nantes and Vice-Inquisitor of the loss of their children, as has been set forth in detail above, in the lower hall of the castle of La Tour Neuve, supplicating them in this to render the requisite justice swiftly.

  Thursday, October 13, 1440.

  * * *

  The accusation put forward, the bill of indictment having been read by the authority of the justices, the accused, having refused to respond and having insulted his judges, is held in contempt of court and excommunicated; his request for appeal is denied.

  * * *

  On the Thursday already indicated, October 13th, before the said Lords Bishop of Nantes and Friar Jean Blouyn, Vicar of the said Inquisitor, sitting on the bench to administer the law, in the great upper hall and at the anticipated hour, namely at the hour of Terce, personally appeared in arraignment the said Master Guillaume Chapeillon, prosecutor and plaintiff, on the one side, and the aforesaid Gilles, the accused, on the other, in order to fulfill the writ of the term of this order, being instructed by the said Friar Jean Blouyn of the authority and jurisdiction belonging to him as noted immediately hereafter.

  The said prosecutor gave, produced, and developed against the said accused certain articles and certain positions, put down in writing, concluding in the tenor written below; on the subject of which the prosecutor requested for the said Gilles, the accused, that each of the articles be read judicially to Gilles, the accused, by the venerable and circumspect person, Milord Jacques de Pencoetdic, official of Nantes and doctor in both courts of law, by mandate of the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, in order for Gilles to respond distinctly, in French, and under oath, to each point contained in the positions and articles, for as many positions and articles as there were, and finally, if he intended to sp
eak or raise objections against them, a certain peremptory term being fixed and assigned as convenient by the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor to the same Gilles, the accused, to speak or raise objections to any of the same articles, this same Gilles, the accused, expecting to be interrogated himself by the same Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor, to know whether the content of the said articles were true.

  * * *

  (The accusation put forward, the bill of indictment having been read by the authority of the justices, the accused, having refused to respond and having insulted his judges, is held in contempt of court and excommunicated; his request for appeal is denied.)

  * * *

  Thereupon the same Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor interrogated the said Gilles, the accused, at the said prosecutor’s request, to know whether he himself intended to respond to these same positions and articles or contradict them, or discuss the issue. To which Gilles said and responded proudly and haughtily that he did not intend to respond to these same positions and articles, stating clearly that the said Lords Bishop and Vicar of the Inquisitor had never been nor were his judges, and that he would appeal. Moreover, now speaking irreverently and rudely, the said Gilles, the accused, declared that the said Lords Bishop of Nantes and Friar Jean Blouyn, Vicar of the Inquisitor, and all the other ecclesiastics, were simoniacs and ribalds; that he would much prefer to be hanged by a rope around his neck than respond to such ecclesiastics and judges, and that he could not tolerate appearing before them. And when the said official of Nantes, prudent Master Geoffroy Piperier, treasurer67 of Notre-Dame-de-Nantes, in the name and place of the said prosecutor, deputized by the aforesaid Lord Bishop of Nantes and Vicar of the aforesaid Inquisitor, explained in French for the said Gilles, the accused, certain passages of the content of the said articles and said depositions, the said Gilles, the accused, irreverently contradicted the said official and treasurer and, turning toward the said Lord Bishop, delivered these words in French: “I will do nothing for you as Bishop of Nantes.”68