The Trial of Gilles De Rais

  Interrogated to know who provided the said Gilles with the formula in which the said letter was cast, he responded that he did not know.

  Item, he declares that he heard the same Gilles say that he had practiced the art of the said invocations for about fourteen years, but that he had never seen the devil nor spoken with him.

  Item, he heard a certain La Picarde, now dead, who was living at the time in the borough of Saint-Martin-de-Machecoul, say that she herself had received into her house as a guest someone who professed to practice the art of invocations with the said Gilles, but he did not hear her mention the said guest by name.

  Item, he said that he performed an invocation at Bourgneuf, which the aforesaid Milord Gilles attended, and another at Josselin in a field, in the absence of the said Lord, the witness then being alone; and the aforenamed devil Barron appeared to him in the aforesaid form of a young man, clad in a mantle of violet silk.

  Item, he said that less than a year before, in the absence of the said Milord Gilles, who was then staying at Bourges, while he was performing an invocation in the aforesaid hall at Tiffauges, Barron appeared to him in the aforesaid form. Who carried and entrusted to the witness a black powder, on a piece of slate. And Barron then enjoined François, the witness, to pass the same powder on to the said Milord Gilles at Bourges, so that he could put it in a small silver vessel and carry it on his person, because he would see his affairs prosper by doing so. Which powder the witness gave to Gilles de Sillé who, by a certain Gascard de Pouzauges, had it passed on to the said Milord Gilles at Bourges.

  Interrogated as to whether Gilles carried this powder on him, he responded that he did not know; but that on the return of the same Lord Gilles to Tiffauges, the aforesaid Poitou, namely Étienne Corrillaut, returned the powder to the witness, in a small silver vessel, enveloped in a piece of linen, commonly called sandal,100 and that the witness received it in the aforesaid vessel; which vessel the witness carried for some time attached about his neck and that then he detached it to keep in a small coffer, or casket, which he had in his room in the house of a certain Master Pierre Rondel at Machecoul, and that up to the moment when he was arrested the small vessel was there, when he was not carrying it in his purse.

  Item, on the return of the said Lord Gilles from Bourges, the witness performed an invocation in the aforesaid hall at Tiffauges, at which Barron appeared in human form; from whom the witness, in the name of the said Lord Giles, asked for money. And not long after that, in fact, he saw a large quantity of gold ingots appear in the room; this gold remained there for several days. As soon as he saw it, the witness wanted to touch it, but the evil spirit’s response was that he should refrain because it was not yet time. Which the witness reported to the said Milord Gilles; and the same Milord Gilles asked him whether he might see it, whether that were permitted; to which the witness responded yes; and the two of them headed for the said room and, as the witness opened the door, a huge, winged, and vigorous snake, as big as a dog, appeared to them on the ground; and then the witness told the said Gilles to take care not to enter the room, because he’d seen a snake there; frightened, the said Gilles started to run for cover and the witness followed. After this the said Milord Gilles took a cross that contained splinters of the Holy Rood in order to enter the room more safely; but the witness told him it was not good to use a holy cross in such an affair. A little while later the witness entered the said room and, when he touched the said apparition of gold, he perceived that it was nothing but fawn-colored dust, and he knew by this the duplicity of the evil spirit.

  Item, he said that the last time the aforesaid Milord Gilles intended to approach the Lord Duke, and this was in the month of July, the witness, by order of the said Gilles, interrogated the said Barron to see whether the said Gilles could go to the Lord Duke and return in safety; Barron responded yes; the witness repeated the same interrogation, and Barron responded to him as often at Machecoul as in Nantes, and not long afterwards at Josselin.

  Item, the witness said that to the questions he posed to him on behalf of the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, he never obtained a truthful response from the devil named Barron, except perhaps on two occasions: namely, when the said Gilles intended to go to the aid of the captain of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte, whom the men or the garrison of Palluau or Essars planned to surprise, Milord Gilles, on horseback, intending an ambush of that garrison, asked what course to take; whereupon the said François declared that Barron had responded that he would not find any troops of the said garrison, and so it happened. And the same François had again obtained another response from the said Barron when Gilles wanted to cross the sea; which Barron forbade him to do because, if François had to do it, he would perish; and it was before arriving in this country that Barron gave him the last response.

  Item, he said that having, by Gilles’ order, concluded a pact with the aforesaid Barron in the name of this same Gilles, by virtue of which every year the said Milord Gilles would provide a meal to three people on three solemn feasts, the same Milord Gilles offered a meal to three people on the last feast of All Saints; and as he had stopped doing so, the said François and Gilles supposed that this was why the same Barron refused to appear in the said Gilles’ presence.

  And these are the things that the said François testified, being diligently subjected to investigation, and interrogated, and he knew no more but what public rumor was spreading, which he said accorded with the facts deposed by him.

  Item, the witness declared that on different occasions the aforesaid Gilles de Rais, the accused, affirmed to him a desire to amend thoroughly the wicked life he had led up to that point, and to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and Jerusalem, where he proposed bringing the witness too, in order to implore Our Redeemer to pardon their sins; this being four months ago, as often at Machecoul as on the island of Bouin, and also at Bourgneuf, in the parish of Saint-Cyr-en-Rais.

  And the witness was enjoined in the usual form not to reveal anything of his deposition to anyone whomsoever, etc.

  2. Eustache Blanchet, priest. October 17, 1440.

  MILORD EUSTACHE BLANCHET, priest, originally from Montauban, in the parish of Saint-Éloi, in the diocese of Saint-Malo, aged about forty to the best of his belief, a witness, as abovenoted, produced, admitted to take an oath to bear witness to the truth in this affair, and excused upon surety to depose in the case, examined this October 17th, in the year of the aforesaid pontificate and general council, interrogated on the promulgated articles and on the whole affair, said and attested that last Ascension Day he went to stay with the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, by his invitation and request; and that two years ago, he, the witness, being at Florence, saw François,101 the preceding witness, who was frequently in the company of Nicolas de Médicis, a Florentine, and a certain François, in the diocese of Castellane, both of whom practiced the art of alchemy, as he attested; and, having begun to get acquainted with the said François, the preceding witness, this latter, knowing that he was originally from France, told him that he would gladly go to France and Brittany, namely to Nantes, where he had a cousin named Martellis, and that he would gladly go to Nantes to see his cousin; and he, the present witness, proposed that as he wanted to go they could go together; which preceding witness told him that if there were anyone in France who wanted to be initiated into the art of alchemy, within three months he could teach him. And the present witness responded that he would find men in France who would receive him for this. Having deliberated upon this, the said François and the present witness started on their way and traveled from Florence all the way to Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, a city which belongs to no diocese, situated in the ecclesiastical province of Tours. Knowing from the beginning of his acquaintance with the said Gilles, the accused, that he was passionately fond of alchemy, the witness wrote to him from there, saying that the said François was coming from Florence and knew how to practice the art of alchemy, which he, the witness, had previously heard it said that
the said Gilles practiced.

  Its having come to the said Gilles’ knowledge, he sent Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, Henriet Griart, and two others in order to lead them both to where Gilles was staying then at Tiffauges, in the diocese of Maillezais; and he, the witness, stayed there, that is, in the castle of the said place, last year, from Ascension Day to the following All Saints’ Day. Which François, a certain Jean,102 a goldsmith from Paris, and an old woman named Perrote, who now lives near the Saint-Nicholas church at Tiffauges, lodged together in one room. At that period, the said François and Gilles de Rais, the accused, worked daily with the said goldsmith at the art of alchemy. And the witness never saw him make the experiment but once.

  Item, he attested that during this period the said Gilles arrived in the said room sometimes at night, sometimes in the day, sometimes at cock’s crow. And, after the said Gilles’ arrival, he, the witness, and Perrote left the said room, leaving the said François and Gilles alone; and the accused himself revealed to the said witness and said Perrote what they were in the process of doing: he said in effect that on another day, the said Gilles arriving, he, the witness, saw the said Gilles and François enter a low hall located behind the room where he, the witness, and the aforementioned others spent the night; in which hall the said Gilles, the accused, and François remained for a while. And suddenly the witness heard the said François speak these words, among other words spoken softly: “Come, Satan”; or “Come!” The witness believes that the same François added: “to our aid,” and he knows nothing else. And the said François spoke several words that the witness was unable to hear clearly and that he is unable to recall; Gilles and François remained there approximately a half hour, in candlelight. And not long after the said words were pronounced, a cold wind blew violently through the said castle. The witness was frightened by this and heard nothing else, as he warranted. Reflecting on the above, he surmised that the said Gilles and François were invoking demons. By reason of which, as he attested, he held a discussion with a certain Robin, another familiar of the said Gilles. And he left the house of the said Gilles and went to stay with Bouchard-Ménard, an innkeeper residing at Mortagne, in Poitou, where he stayed seven weeks or thereabouts. During this time the said Gilles, the accused, wrote him several times to come see him, saying that if he did, he would find himself in good standing with the said Gilles and François. The said witness refused to go near the said Gilles. And in the interim Jean Mercier, the castellan of La Roche-sur-Yon, in the diocese of Luçon, came to lodge with the said Bouchard, whom the witness asked for news about the regions of Nantes and Clisson. The said Mercier responded that, according to the public rumor spread in the aforesaid region and elsewhere, the said Gilles de Rais was killing a large number of children, and having them killed, and that he was writing a book in his own hand with their blood. And that, with this particular book, the said Gilles, the accused, would take all the fortresses he wanted; and that with this said book, thus written, nobody could harm him. But on the following day the goldsmith, namely Jean Petit, came to tell him that the said Gilles and François were extremely desirous of seeing him and requested that he come; to whom he, the witness, responded that in no event would he go to meet them, because of the aforesaid rumor. And he requested that the said goldsmith tell the said Gilles and François to stop the aforesaid things, if they were true, and that it was wrong to perpetrate such crimes; and that public gossip thereupon was strongly against them. Which is what the said goldsmith told them, to the best of the witness’ belief; wherefore the said Gilles became very indignant with the said goldsmith, for he had him imprisoned in the castle of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte, where the same goldsmith stayed a long time. Then the said Gilles sent Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, Gilles de Sillé, Jean Lebreton, and Henriet Griart, his manservants, to Mortagne, where the witness was then residing, in order to seize him; which they did, and they conducted him as far as Roche-Serviére, with the intention of conveying him to the said castle of Mermorte to imprison him; whereupon he, the witness, having been informed of it, refused to go; and he raised such a fuss about it that the aforementioned four led him to Machecoul; to which witness the said Poitou, namely Étienne Corrillaut, declared that if he had been taken to the castle at Mermorte, the said Gilles would have had him killed for the gossip he had related to the goldsmith about Gilles. And he lodged at Machecoul with Étienne Ferron, furrier, remaining there two months, whereupon he went to lodge at the house of the late Guillaume Richard. During the time he was lodging with the said Ferron, one morning before last Easter, what day he cannot remember, he saw the said Poitou arriving at the castle of the said place, accompanied by the son of Georget Le Barbier, pastry-cook, who lived in the said castle; and the next day he heard it said that Georget’s son, aged fifteen or sixteen, was lost, and that after his entry into the said castle, he was never seen again by anyone in the city of Machecoul.

  Item, he stated that while he was living at Machecoul, he heard it said that the young pages of a certain Daussy and of François, the preceding witness, and the nephew of the prior of Chéméré, had been lost, all from fifteen to sixteen years old, and the witness believes that they were killed in the said castle of Machecoul, on account of their credulity, as with Georget’s103 son, who, because his father was managing badly, wanted that part which reverted to him from his mother’s estate, for which he had a silver mark, or a part equivalent to the value of this mark, which he carried in a jewel box to the said castle so that someone would keep it for him; which said jewel box a man named Jean, pastry-cook of Rais’ wife, returned later with other possessions to the father, so he had heard it said; wherefore the witness presumes and believes that Georget’s child was killed in the same place.

  Item, he said that the common rumor was that several old women detained in the prisons of the Lord Duke of Brittany, in Nantes, whose names he did not know, led children to Machecoul and delivered them to the aforesaid Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, and Henriet Griart, who killed them.

  Item, he attested to having several times heard it said by the said Gilles, the accused, that he did not believe it possible for a man to make the devil appear and that he knew a man who attempted it, but could not succeed. And the witness believed that the said Gilles, the accused, was speaking of himself, with reference to the abovenoted and attested.

  Interrogated as to the people present at the time when the preceding words were spoken, he responded that he did not remember.

  Interrogated as to the place where they were spoken and the reason behind, and the intention for, speaking them by the said Gilles, the accused, the witness responded as far as the place was concerned, that it was in the castle at Tiffauges, because the witness, coming and going through Bourgogne and Savoy, to and from the court of Rome, reported to the said Gilles that in these countries there were many heresies, which were growing rapidly. And he, the witness, saw and heard that many old women had been hanged there for the said heresies. And above all for summoning demons.

  Item, he attested to having heard Alain de Mazères say many times that the latter had heard the said Gilles, the accused, say similar things.

  Item, he said that recently, last Easter Sunday, as the aforesaid Gilles was leading the witness and Milord Gilles de Valois, priest, into his study or writing room in the castle at Machecoul, the said Gilles showed them a book that he was writing on the ceremonies of his school at Machecoul, and he, the witness, saw among the archives of the said Gilles, the accused, five or six leaves of paper with large borders, on which there were crosses, red signs, and red writing in the hand of the said Gilles, the accused; which writing he, the witness, presumed and suspected had been done with human blood, considering what he had heard previously: that the said Gilles, the accused, had children killed for their blood, to write books with.

  Item, he attested that last Easter Sunday he saw the said Gilles, the accused, and a certain Milord Olivier des Ferrières, priest, go tog
ether behind the altar of Our Lady in the Sainte-Trinité church at Machecoul, and he believes that the said Olivier heard the confession of the said accused. Because immediately after this the said accused received the Eucharist, at the same time as did the parishioners of little means, in the same place and in their company; which laymen of little means, seeing such a great lord approach, wanted to leave, but the said accused had no desire to let them leave and, moreover, commanded them to remain with him and partake in Communion as usual. And a certain Milord Simon Loisel, then officiating minister of the said church, dispensed the Eucharist.

  Item, he attested that the children of Master Jean Briand, principally Perrinet, the youngest, and another one named Pierre, of the aforesaid Gilles’ music school, constantly remained in the room of the said accused, and that the said Perrinet was his favorite.

  Item, interrogated as to the ejaculation of sperm on the children by the said Gilles, the accused, he said that he had known nothing about it until he heard talk about it.

  Item, the witness stated that he had heard it said by Mathieu Fouquet, speaking with him about the said children’s deaths, and being shocked, as this was not new and as many people were speaking about it and had for a long time, and it had already been some time since they found the bones of the dead children in the castle at Champtocé.

  Moreover, so far as concerns the invocations of demons and the murders of children, as to whether he assisted in them, he said that he was putting and puts his trust in the relation, confession, depositions and attestations of those accused: François,104 the Marquis,105 Poitou and Henriet; and that he wanted and wants to believe on that score, thereupon trusting their consciences, as he had already trusted them and would again.