Trial of Gilles De Rais

by George Bataille

  Item, he stated and deposed that the said Gilles, the accused, practiced his lust on each of the said children once or twice and, that done, sometimes killed the said children by his own hand, sometimes had them killed by the said Sillé, Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, or him, the witness, sometimes together, and sometimes separately.

  Interrogated as to the manner of killing the said children, he responded that sometimes he severed the head and lopped off the members, sometimes he slit the throat, the head remaining attached to the body, sometimes he broke their necks with a cudgel, sometimes he cut into a vein in the neck or into another part of the throat, so that the said children bled, when sometimes the said Gilles de Rais would sit on the bellies of the said children, thus in the languor of death, and watch them die, leaning on them.

  Item, he stated and deposed that sometimes when he intended to practice his criminal lusts on the said children, in order to stifle their wails or cries, the said Gilles, the accused, hung them or had him, the witness, Corrillaut, and Sillé, suspend them with cords around the neck, sometimes on a peg, sometimes on a crook or a small hook in his room, while threatening and frightening them, and then, when they were hurt and terrified by this treatment, cajoled them, telling them not to fear, assuring them that he only wanted to have fun with them, and finally practiced his lust on them, as abovecited.

  Moreover, he stated and deposed that sometimes the said Gilles, the accused, practiced his debauchery on the said children before killing them, or before beginning to kill them, other times after it had begun and they were in the languor of death, sometimes after they had been killed, their bodies still warm.

  Interrogated as to what was done with their blood, he responded that it ran and spilt onto the ground, which was subsequently cleaned.

  Interrogated as to what they did with the bodies and clothes, he said that they burned them in the room of the said Gilles, the accused.

  Asked how, he said that they burned the clothes piece by piece in the fireplace of the said room, so that no one might smell the nasty odor; and that, to burn the said bodies, they laid them on thick logs on the andirons, on top of which they placed abundant faggots, and they were burned in this way.

  Interrogated as to what they did with the ashes or dust of the said burned bodies, he responded that they threw them into secret places in the rooms where the aforesaid acts were committed, occasionally into the latrines, sometimes into the pits or other places which seemed fitting.

  Interrogated as to the places where the things were done which he, the witness, was present for, he responded: in Nantes, in the said Gilles’ house, commonly known as La Suze, and in the castles of Machecoul and Tiffauges.

  Interrogated as to the location, he said in a certain room of the said house of La Suze, lying at the end of the building, near the parochial church of Saint-Denis, in the same city of Nantes, in which room the said Gilles regularly spent the night; and often at the entrance to the said castle of Machecoul.

  Item, interrogated as to where he, the witness, snatched the said children whom he and the others, named by him, handed over to the said Gilles, he responded that the children handed over by him, the witness, were for the most part snatched among those asking for alms, as often at the residence of the said Gilles, the accused, as elsewhere.

  Interrogated as to the number of children, he responded as above, namely that there were nearly forty handed over by him and the aforementioned others, fourteen or fifteen of whom were killed in Nantes, in the said house of La Suze, the others at Machecoul for the most part, and at Tiffauges and elsewhere.

  Item, he deposed that Catherine, the wife of a painter named Thierry, then staying in Nantes, procured for and gave him, the witness, a brother of hers to be escorted to the house of the said Gilles, the accused, in the hope of his being made one of the choristers of the said Gilles; whom he led to Machecoul and brought into the room of the said Gilles, the accused. And after delivery of that child, the said Gilles, the accused, had the witness swear to reveal nothing of the secrets that he would make him privy to.

  Interrogated as to the place where he took the said oath, he responded: in the church of the Sainte-Trinité at Machecoul.

  Interrogated as to when, he responded that it had been about three years before. Moreover, he stated that after the said delivery of the said child he, the witness, went to Nantes, where he remained for three days without returning to Machecoul; and when, having returned to Machecoul after these three days, he sought the said child whom he could not find, he was told that he had left this world, in the same way as the others; and the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, made him understand that the said Gilles, the accused, had killed the said child by his own hand; and, like the others, the child had served him in his libidinous acts.

  Item, he stated and deposed that the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, led a beautiful child from La Roche-Bernard to Machecoul, and gave him to the said Gilles, who abused him as he had the others abovenoted.

  Item, he deposed that at Machecoul he saw a young and beautiful boy who was the page of Master François Prelati, and who had his throat cut, he does not know by whom, having been absent; and the said Gilles abused him like the others.

  Item, he stated and deposed that during Pentecost in 1439, he, the witness, and the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, nabbed a very beautiful adolescent, about fifteen years old, who was living with a man named Rodigo in Bourgneuf, in the parish of Saint-Cyr-en-Rais, in the diocese of Nantes, and they led him to the said Gilles, the accused, and handed him over at the house of the Cordeliers in the said place of Bourgneuf, where he was staying; and after the said Gilles, the accused, had abused him lasciviously in the aforesaid manner, Henriet, the current witness, and Corrillaut, killed him by order of the said Gilles de Rais and, consequently, brought the body of that young boy to Machecoul where they burned it in the room of the said Gilles.

  Item, he deposed that about two and a half years previously, a man commonly called Prince, living in Nantes, had a very beautiful adolescent for a page, who was living with him and familiar with the witness, and who was given by the said Prince to the said Gilles, who promised to make him his valet in place of the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, this latter expressing a desire to leave Gilles’ service; and immediately after the said Gilles had received this young boy, he abused him carnally and shamefully in his unnatural lusts; then he killed him by his own hand, and the said boy was about fourteen years old.

  Item, he stated and deposed that a certain André Buchet, who had belonged to the chapel of the said Gilles de Rais, and who, at the time of the deposition, belonged to that of the Lord Duke, sent from the vicinity of Vannes to Machecoul a certain child dressed as a page, who was about nine years old and one of his servants, called Raoulet, and conducted him to the said Gilles, the accused. This child, after the said Gilles had carnally and criminally abused him, was killed and burned like the others, as related above. And the witness added that the said Gilles, the accused, paid the said Buchet for his services with a horse valued at sixty gold royals, which Pierre Heaume delivered to him.

  Item, he deposed that he had heard the said Gilles, the accused, say that he took greater pleasure in murdering the said children, in seeing their heads and members separated, in seeing them languish and seeing their blood, than he did in knowing them carnally.

  Item, he said that the said Gilles, the accused, had a sword, commonly called a braquemard,117 with which to sever the heads of the said children and cut their throats, and he often delighted in looking at their severed heads and showed them to him, the witness, and Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, asking them which of the said heads was the most beautiful of those he was showing them, the head severed at that very moment, or that from the day before, or another from the day before that, and he often kissed the head that pleased him most, and delighted in doing so.

  Item, he deposed that when the said Gilles, the accused, encountered two
boys or girls, brothers or sisters, or other children living together, if one of them conformed to his taste and he did not want to know the other carnally, he had them both snatched together, and he dealt lasciviously with just the one; and, so that the other would not complain of the loss of the first, he had both their throats cut and each killed.

  Item, he deposed that the said Gilles, the accused, exercised his debaucheries on girls and abused them in the same manner as he did the boys, disdaining and neglecting their sex.

  Item, he deposed that he had heard the said Gilles, the accused, say that he was born under such a star that, in his view, nobody could know or understand the anomalies or illicit acts of which he was guilty.

  Item, he deposed that sometimes the said Gilles, the accused, cut the throats of many of the said children, and cut off their members, or had others do so. And he said that he had heard Milord Eustache Blanchet, a priest and companion of the said Gilles, the accused, say that the said Gilles could not accomplish what he had begun to undertake without giving or offering the devil the feet, hands, or other members of the said children. And the witness added that he himself cut the throats of many of these children and carved them up in many and various ways, whose number he said he remembered as fewer than those about whom he had already deposed above.

  Item, he deposed that the said Gilles, the accused, often chose from the boys and girls whom he saw asking for alms, according as they pleased him, and ordered that they be brought for the satisfaction of his evil pleasure.

  Item, he deposed that he had heard the said Gilles de Sillé say to him, the witness, and the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, that it was lucky for the said Gilles de Rais and him that he, Sillé, had carried off and removed the bones of nearly forty children from a certain tower near the castle of Machecoul, as he said, and that less than a fortnight or three weeks before the said castle of Machecoul was taken by the said Lord de La Suze and Lord de Lohéac, and the witness said that it had now been occupied for the past two years; and that the said Sillé himself spoke these or similar words in French to the witness: “Wasn’t Milord Roger de Briqueville a traitor to have asked Robin Romulart and me to watch Lady Jarville and Thomin d’Araguin through a slit when we removed the said bones? and his knowing full well everything that had been done?”118

  Item, he said that the said Sillé told him, the witness, and the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, that he, Sillé, burned the said bones which, the witness asserted, had been there for as long as the said Sillé and Briqueville had been privy to the secrets of the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, and even before they had both exposed these secrets, namely Henriet, the present witness, and Corrillaut, also known as Poitou.

  Item, he deposed that when the said Gilles de Rais could not find children to his liking, he practiced his lust in the manner described above on the children in his chapel; but he did not kill them or have them killed, because they kept these things secret.

  Interrogated as to those children in his said chapel with whom Gilles de Rais so acted, he responded: with Perrinet, son of Master Jean Briand, resident of Nantes, and with others whose names he could not remember; which Perrinet was the favorite of the said accused, whom he cherished more than the others.

  Item, he stated and deposed that the said Milord Eustache Blanchet, abovementioned, went to Italy to seek Master François Prelati and whom he brought back with him to the said Gilles de Rais, by order of the latter, to practice the art of alchemy and conjure demons. And that he heard him say these words in French: “that he would summon Master Aliboron.”119 Moreover, he stated that he had heard the same Master Eustache say that for a jug of wine the said Master François Prelati would summon the devil and cause him to appear.

  Item, he deposed that in the presence of the said Gilles de Rais, Master Eustache Blanchet, Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, and the witness, the said Master François Prelati made and composed a large circle with the tip of a sword on the floor of the large hall of the castle at Tiffauges, in the four parts of which he inscribed crosses, signs, or characters in the manner of armories, by order of the said Gilles, the accused, and that he, the witness, the said Master Eustache Blanchet, and Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, carried in a large quantity of coal, incense, a lodestone or pierre d’aimant, torches or candles, tapers, an earthen pot and other things, which the said Gilles de Rais and Master François placed in a certain part of the said circle; and they lit a scorching fire in the said pot. Then the said François lit another fire at an angle to the door or at the entrance to the said hall, where they also made others signs in the manner of armories, near or on the walls of the said hall, near the last said fire; and not long afterwards the said Master François Prelati had the four windows of the said court opened, in the manner of a cross; that is, in such a way that the opening of the said windows or the action of opening them seemed to represent in some way the sign of the cross. This being done, the present witness, as well as Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, and Milord Eustache Blanchet, already mentioned, by order of the said Gilles, the accused, retired to his room on the floor above, thus dismissed by Gilles, the accused, and Master François, the only ones who remained in the said hall. Prior to and at the moment when the witness and the aforesaid Milord Eustache and Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, were withdrawing, Gilles, the accused, expressly forbade them ever to reveal to anyone whomsoever anything of what had gone on so far, or to come near in order to see or hear what he, Gilles, the accused, and Master François might be doing.

  Item, he stated and deposed that after he had withdrawn as well as the said Milord Eustache and Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, and as soon as they entered the said room of the said Gilles, the accused, a certain period of time having elapsed, the witness and the said Milord Eustache heard the said Master François speaking aloud in the said room; but, as the witness asserted, he could not understand any of the things he was saying. And soon thereafter the witness and Milord Eustache heard a certain noise, like that made by a four-legged animal walking on the roof. Which animal, it seemed to them, approached near the dovecote of the said place, near where the said Gilles, the accused, and Master François were.

  Interrogated to know whether the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, had heard anything of the preceding events gathered by the witness and Milord Eustache, as reported, he responded that he thought not; moreover, the witness believed that the same Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, was asleep by this time.

  Interrogated as to the season or date, he responded that about a year had passed since these effects had been produced.

  Interrogated as to the hour, he responded that the aforementioned things happened during the night, before midnight, and ended an hour later.

  Interrogated as to the month and day, he responded that he did not know precisely anymore, but is certain that it was during the summer.

  Item, the same witness, deposing in the case, added that the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, and Master François were alone at Machecoul for a period of five weeks, in a room of that same castle, a room whose key the said Gilles, the accused, always held; and the witness heard it said, he does not know by whom, that the figure or image of a hand, in a kind of wrought iron, had been discovered in the said room.

  Item, he added and deposed, however, that the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, carried into his room in the castle at Tiffauges, a room that the same witness and Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, guarded, the hand and heart of a young boy who had been killed in the said place of Tiffauges by order of the said Gilles, the accused, perhaps by Gilles himself, and that the latter deposited them in a glass covered with a piece of linen, near the fireplace of the said room, namely on the upper part of the fireplace known in French as the cyma;120 and he enjoined the witness and the said Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, to bolt the door of the said room.

  Interrogated as to what was done with that hand and heart, he responded that he did not r
eally know, but he thought Master François must have used them, and that the said accused Gilles must have entrusted them to him to perform his invocations, so that he might offer that heart and hand to the conjured demons.

  And the witness was enjoined in the usual form to reveal nothing of his deposition to anyone, etc.

  II. Depositions concerning the violation of Church privileges.

  1. Jean Rousseau, man-at-arms of the Duke of Brittany. October 19, 1440.

  JEAN ROUSSEAU, man-at-arms of the Duke of Brittany, parishioner of Saint-Nicolas of Nantes, aged forty or thereabouts to the best of his belief, a witness, produced, received, and having sworn to bear witness to the truth, in the cases of this order, examined this October 19, 1440, in the year of the aforesaid pontificate and general council, submitted to inquiry and interrogated as to the content of Article XLII, beginning with: “Item, that two years ago, etc.,” which mentions the violation of ecclesiastical immunity, deposed and stated that on the Monday following the past Pentecost, while this witness, as well as Jean Le Ferron and a certain Guillaume Hautreys, and several others, were in the parochial church of Saint-Étienne-de-Mermorte, in the diocese of Nantes, which parochial church was and is located near the castle of the said place; to which place the witness had gone on behalf of the Lord Duke in order to place a restraining order on the debtors of the royal treasury against discharging or paying over to Gilles, the accused, the rents, poll taxes, or other taxes of the place. And while the witness and the aforesaid others were there at the close of High Mass in the aforesaid parochial church, the witness saw the aforenamed Gilles, the accused, with a kind of sword, called in French a gisarme,121 in his hand, followed by certain others of his men, enter the said church boisterously, and, addressing himself menacingly to the aforesaid Le Ferron and others then in the said church, but particularly to the aforesaid Ferron, cry out in a terrible voice, in French: “Outside! Outside!”122 Then the witness saw a certain Lenano, Marquis de Ceva, an intimate of the said Gilles, the accused, who was also there, lead the aforesaid Le Ferron outside the said church behind the said Gilles, the accused, and his other men; and he believes that the said Le Ferron exited the said church then because he was terrified by the said accused’s threats more than anything else. The witness intended to leave the said church then and would have done so had not someone in the retinue of the said Gilles, the accused, made a sign to the witness with his finger (and in making the said sign, he brought his finger to his nose and eyes similar to how one crosses oneself), and for this reason he remained in the aforesaid church.