* * *
The Duke of Alençon and Joan of Arc, in spite of her injury, prepare for battle early. But the command returns to the King at Saint-Denis. Logically, La Trémoille is restless. The extraordinary prestige that the taking of Paris, which then seemed probable, would have accorded the Maid, would also have brought offense to the favorite. At the same time, he was probably fearing the Duke of Alençon’s glory. Without a doubt, La Trémoille is responsible for abandoning the Siege of Paris. A weary Charles VII has to approve. Whatever happened, the decision that same day to destroy a bridge that, thrown over the Seine, ought to have facilitated the attack is often attributed to the King himself. Gilles de Rais must, should the occasion arise, serve La Trémoille’s interests. On the 8th he fights, but on the 9th he follows orders.
* * *
September 13
* * *
Charles VII leaves Saint-Denis. He withdraws toward the Loire. This retreat compromises the liberation. The towns that surrendered to Charles VII now lie abandoned, and their situation is dangerous. The decline of Joan of Arc, followed by prison and torment by fire, begins with the order to retreat from Paris.
* * *
(1429)
* * *
* * *
September
* * *
Near the end of September, letters patent from Charles VII bestow on Marshal de Rais an “orle” of “gold lilies on an azure field,” supplementing his armorial bearings. These letters consider his “lofty and recommendable services” and the “great perils and dangers” to which the Marshal was exposed, “as in the taking of Lude and many other handsome deeds, the lifting of the siege that the English recently laid before the town of Orléans … and also on the day of the Battle of Patay when, the said siege raised, our said enemies were crestfallen; and, since then, the cavalcade made recently, as well in Reims, for our coronation and consecration, as elsewhere, beyond the Seine, for the repossession of many of our regions …” The fact that these letters are dated from Sully-sur-Loire, that is, from a castle belonging to Georges de La Trémoille, succeeds in underlining the accord between Gilles de Rais and Charles VII’s favorite. In any event, Joan of Arc is not mentioned. Some have spoken of Gilles’ affection for Joan, or Joan’s for Gilles. It is nothing but supposition, with no other foundation than the naïveté of certain authors, recent enough, who in speaking of Gilles de Rais wanted to contrast a seductive aspect to his odiousness. Some have said that he corrected his ways when fighting in Joan’s company: it is not likely; it is only likely that he showed some interest in the memory of Joan of Arc during his long stay at Orléans (1434 and 1435); the Maid was then enjoying a marvelous popularity among the people of Orléans, and Gilles benefited by recalling that he had fought at her side. But in September 1429, Charles VII’s offices could even insist, in the face of everything, on designating to the general sympathy this Marshal of lofty birth, who was not even twenty-five years old (but whose celebrity today is based on his unheard-of crimes). Joan of Arc was not immediately abandoned, but the leaders no longer wanted to allow her to have the primary role.
* * *
By the end of the year Birth of Marie, Gilles’ daughter
* * *
The birth, evidently at Champtocé, of Gille’s daughter, Marie.
* * *
Out of the blue First sale of the domain
* * *
We know that at the age of twenty-five (he was born in 1404), with the sale of the patrimonial estate of Blaison, Gilles starts liquidating his immense fortune. From 1434 on, this liquidation should accelerate and rapidly lead him to ruin.
* * *
1430
Around 1430
* * *
At the beginning of 1430 (or the end of 1429), Gilles de Rais is captain of Sable, in Sarthe. Yolande D‘Aragon, regent of the duchy of Anjou, is now at war with La Trémoille; Gilles’ occupation of Sable is one of the episodes of the quarrel. Leaving Sable, Gilles attempts to take Châteaul’Hermitage, occupied by Jean de Bueil, a renowned captain, great lord, and author of a book which is both chronicle and fiction. This book, Jouvencel, without mentioning names, reports the events of this war in detail. Gilles cannot take Château-l’Hermitage. Jean de Bueil sounds the alarm in time; but, while sounding it, he falls into the hands of Gilles’ men. The prisoner is led to Sable. Gilles has him imprisoned “all alone in a great tower, in which he had the happy leisure to reflect, think, and imagine.” He prepares his revenge astutely. He pays his ransom and, free, carries out the taking of Sablé that he had meditated on in prison. Later on, Gilles de Rais retakes the town: the date is difficult to specify, but Abbot Bourdeaut reasonably estimates it to have been prior to the conspiracy against La Trémoille in July of 1433 that ends the career of his favorite and his quarrel with Yolande d’Aragon. Yolande d’Aragon’s man, Jean de Bueil, participates, incidentally, in this conspiracy.
* * *
The Ancenis’ plot against Yolande d’Aragon
* * *
It is necessary, moreover, to situate before July 1433, probably before February 1431 even, the armed attack to which Yolande falls victim, which Gilles de Rais or Craon — or the both of them — prepared: the Queen of Sicily riding peacefully in her own domain, in Anjou, entering the city of Ancenis on the Loire (at least forty kilometers upstream of Nantes); men from the Champtocé garrison (situated twenty kilometers farther upstream) arrest and imprison part of her escort and steal their horses and baggage. The great lords, in this epoch, are subject to banditry as well.
* * *
December 26 Gilles de Rais in Louviers
* * *
Gilles de Rais dates from Louviers an I.O.U. of two hundred and sixty gold crowns to one Rolland Mauvoisin, captain of Prince (in the land of Rais). These two hundred and sixty crowns are destined for the purchase of a horse for another of Gilles’ captains, Michel Machefer. Gilles’ presence in Louviers, at the moment when Joan of Arc is held prisoner at Rouen, appeared to be in preparation of an armed attack to spring her. The hypothesis appears badly founded. First of all, Charles VII did nothing in his power to gain the freedom of the woman to whom he owed his kingdom. Above all Gilles de Rais is bound to La Trémoille, Yolande d’Aragon’s enemy; but Yolande is, if necessary, the only one in the King’s entourage who shows an interest in Joan; Gilles, by all appearances, shares the general indifference of all those gravitating around Charles VII.
* * *
(1430)
* * *
* * *
1431
February 22 to 24
* * *
Gilles de Rais and Jean de Craon mediate on La Trémoille’s behalf complex deals with Jean V of Brittany and Yolande d‘Aragon; they also mediate between Yolande and Jean V. The castle of Champtocé serves as a meeting place. As early as 1430, Constable Arthur de Richemont, Jean V’s brother, accompanied by another brother of the Duke (Richard, Count d’Étampes), meets Yolande herself, or her envoys, there; this has to do with preparations for an alliance between the houses of Anjou and Brittany.20 In any case, during a conference that lasts from February 22nd to the 24th, Georges de La Trémoille meets Jean V. They exchange letters — completely theoretical — of eternal friendship. But the marriage of François de Bretagne, Jean’s son, to Yolande d’Aragon is then agreed upon (it takes place August 20th of the same year in Nantes); it will end a tension threatening to provoke war between Anjou and Brittany. We are not exactly sure of the role of Gilles de Rais and his grandfather in these arduous affairs. But their devious spirit was able to delight in them, in keeping with the spirit of La Trémoille.
* * *
May 30
* * *
Joan of Arc is burned at Rouen.
* * *
December 16
* * *
Young Henry VI of England is crowned King of France at Notre-Dame in Paris. In spite of Joan of Arc’s execution, and however solemn the demonstration at Notre-Dame, England is in a bind. Only t
he pernicious influence of La Trémoille permits her to maintain her positions several years hence.
* * *
1432
August 10 Battle of Lagny
* * *
The possession of Lagny assures French control over the lower Marne region, not far from Paris. The regent Bedford himself came to reinforce the siege of the city. Gilles de Rais, with the Bastard of Orléans, Lords de Gaucourt, Xaintrailles, and others, battle the English. The victorious royal army forces the English regent to lift the siege. Lagny and the Tourelles are the two great feats of arms that confirm the Marshal’s valiant reputation.
* * *
November 15 Death of the grandfather
* * *
Jean de Craon dies, apparently alarmed at having understood what his oldest grandchild is capable of. Not only was he terrified by Gilles’ extravagance, but he must have foreseen where his vices and cruelty would lead. In Craon’s bitterness — it was to the younger grandson, to René, that he left his sword and cuirass! With the approach of death, he is profoundly troubled in other respects. He is bound to reexamine his pride and his freebooter brutality; he asks, therefore, for a humble funeral.
* * *
November 26
* * *
Gilles makes good the damage done to the chaplaincy of Louroux-Bottereau by his grandfather’s embezzlement of funds, which were allocated on behalf of this charitable foundation by his great-grandmother, Catherine de Machecoul, at the end of the 14th century.
* * *
Around 1432
* * *
Poitou, up until then Gilles de Rais’ page, becomes his “child valet,” but apparently he does not enter his master’s secrets before 1437.
* * *
1432-1433
The first child murders
* * *
Here is what we draw from his confessions (p. 193) on the day Gilles’ crimes began: “Interrogated as to where he perpetrated the said crimes, and when he began … , he stated and responded: in the first place, at the Champtocé castle, in the year when Lord de La Suze, his grandfather, died.” We have just seen how this lord, Jean de Craon, died November 15, 1432; we should not forget that in the Middle Ages the new year began in spring.
The confession adds: “At which place he killed children and had them killed in large numbers — how many he is uncertain; and he committed with them the … sodomitic and unnatural sin; and at this time Gilles de Sillé alone knew …” (p. 197).
In his confession before the secular court, Poitou, who was clearly in Gilles de Rais’ service since 1427 at the age of the ten, affirms that Gilles committed murders in his room at Champtocé during the life of Jean de Craon. Poitou had heard him say this (p. 274), but it is not necessarily convincing. Poitou claims, in the bill of indictment, that Gilles had been killing since 1426. We ought to hold, it seems, to the date given by Gilles himself: he began killing in the year his grandfather died. However, he does not say after his death. He could have tranquilly killed in his room from the moment the old man was feeble enough that he was as good as dead. Keeping in mind that before this death Gilles could have killed elsewhere, the fact remains that on, or on the approach of, this death, a feeling of solitude, strength, and freedom managed to intoxicate him. Clearly his grandfather, the predatory old man, had an influence over him. He had initiated him into the life. He had assisted him, counseled him in the profession of arms, which rested on violence and disregard for human life. He had taught him how to act like a gangster. True, by 1424 Gilles refuses the administration of his finances. But, when in 1427 he begins to fight, it is as Jean de Craon’s lieutenant general, which puts him on a par with experienced captains in Anjou. He commands Craon’s troops in Maine; it is through Craon that he clings to his cousin Georges de La Tremoille. Georges de La Tremoille comes from Graon’s family. Apparently Gilles’ living example was his grandfather. The grandson was at ease with this unstoppable man. He was at home and fascinated! But the thought of sex crimes haunted him; and sex crime would have scandalized the old man. On the other hand, Graon would have been anxious to avoid those mad expenditures that gave Gilles a sort of vertigo that he could not resist. With the grandfather dead, the grandson found himself at the helm of an increased fortune; there was no longer anything to bridle the rage that tormented him. Only crime, that negation of every bridle, was to give him the unlimited sovereignty that the old man had possessed in Gilles’ adolescent eyes. Gilles was the rival of the man who raised him, whom he followed — and admired — and who was now dead, who had surpassed him in life. He was going to surpass him in turn. He would surpass him in crime. Even if he does not think in this fashion, the emancipation is no less intoxicating, no less liberating to unspeakable debaucheries.
* * *
(1432-1433)
* * *
As to the date of his crimes, Gilles,’ confession is contrary to the bill of indictment: the latter states “fourteen years earlier.” This document, in advance of the confessions, has the first murders dating back to 1426, but without proof, and of a simply conjectural nature. Had he agreed with the indictment on this point, Gilles would not have aggravated his position when he confessed. Elsewhere there is a concordance between the date given in the confession and that of the first testimonies on the disappearances of children.
These testimonies, it is true, do not concern Champtocé, which comes under the duchy of Anjou: the judges in Nantes were inquiring within the limits of their jurisdiction, in the duchy of Brittany alone.
The five following testimonies relate to Machecoul, but the approximate date to which they refer is 1432-1433, that is to say, in the old style, in the year when “Lord de La Suze died”:
1. Around 1432, a child of Jean Jeudon, of Machecoul, aged twelve, was apprenticed to Guillaume, Hilairet, a furrier, himself living at Machecoul. Guillaume Hilairet, who testifies along with his wife, Jeanne, declares that he gave the child to Gilles de Sillé under the pretext of the child carrying a message to the castle. Much later that same day, Guillaume Hilairet asks Ciilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville what has happened to his apprentice. They do not know a thing, they say, unless he left for Tiffauges; “a place,” relates the said Sillé, “where he thought that thieves had taken his said valet for a page.”
Jean Jeudon, subpoenaed as a witness, confirms Hilairet’s statements. These first witnesses’ affirmations are confirmed by André Barbe, a shoemaker; by Jeannot Roussin and Jeanne (Aimery Édelin’s widow); and, finally, by Mace Sorin and his wife, all of them from Machecoul. It will be seen how this last couple, just around the same period, had themselves complained of the disappearance of a child. Hilairet’s deposition dates from September 28, 1440 (or one or two days after); he sets the date of the disappearance of Jean Jeudon’s son at seven or eight years earlier. Hilairet’s memory, therefore, would agree with the years 1432 or 1433. Further on one will see other disappearances which shall follow quickly after, assigning an appreciable probability to this date of 1432- 1433 (pp. 258-261).
2. A child of Jeannot Roussin, aged nine, disappears while watching the animals in the countryside near Machecoul (“es villages” of Machecoul). He disappears, the witness remembers, precisely the day after the lamentations motivated by the disappearance of Jean Jeudon’s son. Actually, it is impossible not to associate the disappearances which, following one after another, clearly lend a feeling of terror. Gilles de Sillé is as closely connected to the disappearance of Jeannot Roussin’s child as to that of Jean Jeudon’s son. The child knew Lord de Rais’ accomplice well; someone had seen Gilles de Sillé speaking with him, wearing a long mantle and a veil over his face.
As for the date, the testimony of Jeannot Roussin declares that it happened “about nine years ago.” We therefore ought to attribute this disappearance, and that of the first four known victims, to 1431 because the second is subsequent to the first and, as we shall see, the third and fourth follow closely after the second. But these extremely belated est
imations are necessarily pretty vague; in addition, with Roussin’s son having vanished at the age of nine, the figure nine could have passed from the age of the child to the number of years since his disappearance. Finally, the number eight (and even seven once) is used for the date in other cases of missing children that testimonies define with relative precision as contemporaneous (pp. 259-261).
3. Aimery Édelin’s widow, Jeanne, formerly Jean Bonneau’s wife, complains of the loss of her son, who was living with the plaintiff’s mother opposite the castle of Machecoul. He was an eight-year-old schoolboy who “was very beautiful, very fair, and clever.”
His disappearance happened unexpectedly, some eight years earlier, fifteen days before that of Mace Sorin’s child, and after those of the children of Jean Jeudon and Jeannot Roussin. Mace Sorin and his wife are witnesses to the fact that this child was never seen again (pp. 260 and 261).
Trial of Gilles De Rais Page 11