The Book of Were-Wolves by Sabine Baring-Gould (best desktop ebook reader .txt) đź“•
[1. OVID. Met. i. 237; PAUSANIAS, viii. 2, § 1; TZETZE ad Lycoph. 481; ERATOSTH. Catas. i. 8.]
In vain he attempted to speak; from that very instant His jaws were bespluttered with foam, and only he thirsted For blood, as he raged amongst flocks and panted for slaughter. His vesture was changed into hair, his limbs became crooked; A wolf,--he retains yet large trace of his ancient expression, Hoary he is as afore, his countenance rabid, His eyes glitter savagely still, the picture of fury.
Pliny relates from Evanthes, that on the festival of Jupiter Lycæus, one of the family of Antæus was selected by lot, and conducted to the brink of the Arcadian lake. He then hung his clothes on a tree and plunged into the water, whereupon he was transformed into a wolf. Nine years after, if he had not tasted human flesh, he was at liberty to swim
Read free book «The Book of Were-Wolves by Sabine Baring-Gould (best desktop ebook reader .txt) 📕» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Sabine Baring-Gould
- Performer: -
Read book online «The Book of Were-Wolves by Sabine Baring-Gould (best desktop ebook reader .txt) 📕». Author - Sabine Baring-Gould
off and eats our little ones?”
“Believe what you like,” was the advice given to him; “but ask no
questions.” As this conversation had taken place, one of the marshal’s
men at arms had passed, when all those who had been speaking took to
their heels. André, who had run with the rest, without knowing exactly
why he fled, came upon a man near the church of the Holy Trinity, who
was weeping bitterly, and crying out,—“O my God, wilt Thou not
restore to me my little one?” This man had also been robbed of his
child.
Licette, wife of Guillaume Sergent, living at La Boneardière, in the
parish of S. Croix de Machecoul, had lost her son two years before,
and had not seen him since; she besought the commissioners, with tears
in her eyes, to restore him to her.
“I left him,” said she, “at home whilst I went into the field with my
husband to sow flax. He was a bonny little lad, and he was as good as
he was bonny. He had to look after his tiny sister, who was a year and
a half old. On my return home, the little girl was found, but she
could not tell me what had become of him. Afterwards we found in the
marsh a small red woollen cap which had belonged to my poor darling;
but it was in vain that we dragged the marsh, nothing was found more,
except good evidence that he had not been drowned. A hawker who sold
needles and thread passed through Machecoul at the time, and told me
that an old woman in grey, with a black hood on her head, had bought
of him some children’s toys, and had a few moments after passed him,
leading a little boy by the hand.”
Georges Lebarbier, living near the gate of the châtelet de Machecoul,
gave an account of the manner in which his son had evanesced. The boy
was apprenticed to Jean Pelletier, tailor to Mme. de Retz and to the
household of the castle. He seemed to be getting on in his profession,
when last year, about S. Barnabas’ day, he went to play at ball on the
castle green. He never returned from the game.
This youth and his master, Jean Pelletier, had been in the habit of
eating and drinking at the castle, and bad always laughed at the
ominous stories told by the people.
Guillaume Hilaire and his wife confirmed the statements of Lebarbier.
They also said that they knew of the loss of the sons of Jean Gendron,
Jeanne Rouen, and Alexandre Châtellier. The son of Jean Gendron, aged
twelve, lived with the said Hilaire and learned of him the trade of
skinner. He had been working in the shop for seven or eight years, and
was a steady, hardworking lad. One day Messieurs Gilles de Sillé and
Roger de Briqueville entered the shop to purchase a pair of hunting
gloves. They asked if little Gendron might take a message for them to
the castle. Hilaire readily consented, and the boy received beforehand
the payment for going—a gold angelus, and he started, promising to be
back directly. But he had never returned. That evening Hiliare and his
wife, observing Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville returning to
the castle, ran to them and asked what had become of the apprentice.
They replied that they had no notion of where he was, as they had been
absent hunting, but that it was possible he might have been sent to
Tiffauges, another castle of De Retz.
Guillaume Hilaire, whose depositions were more grave and explicit than
the others, positively asserted that Jean Dujardin, valet to Roger de
Briqueville had told him he knew of a cask secreted in the castle,
full of children’s corpses. He said that he had often heard people say
that children were enticed to the château and then murdered, but had
treated it as an idle tale. He said, moreover, that the marshal was
not accused of having any hand in the murders, but that his servants
were supposed to be guilty.
Jean Gendron himself deposed to the loss of his son, and he added that
his was not the only child which had vanished mysteriously at
Machecoul. He knew of thirty that had disappeared.
Jean Chipholon, elder and junior, Jean Aubin, and Clement Doré, all
inhabitants of the parish of Thomage, deposed that they had known a
poor man of the same parish, named Mathelin Thomas, who had lost his
son, aged twelve, and that he had died of grief in consequence.
Jeanne Rouen, of Machecoul, who for nine years had been in a state of
uncertainty whether her son were alive or dead, deposed that the child
had been carried off whilst keeping sheep. She had thought that he had
been devoured of wolves, but two women of Machecoul, now deceased, had
seen Gilles de Sillé approach the little shepherd, speak to him, and
point to the castle. Shortly after the lad had walked off in that
direction. The husband of Jeanne Rouen went to the château to inquire
after his son, but could obtain no information. When next Gilles de
Sillé appeared in the town, the disconsolate mother entreated him to
restore her child to her. Gilles replied that he knew nothing about
him, as he had been to the king at Amboise.
Jeanne, widow of Aymery Hedelin, living at Machecoul, had also lost,
eight years before, a little child as he had pursued some butterflies
into the wood. At the same time four other children had been carried
off, those of Gendron, Rouen, and Macé Sorin. She said that the story
circulated through the country was, that Gilles de Sillé stole
children to make them over to the English, in order to obtain the
ransom of his brother who was a captive. But she added that this
report was traced to the servants of Sillé, and that it was propagated
by them.
One of the last children to disappear was that of Noël Aise, living in
the parish of S. Croix.
A man from Tiffauges had said to her (Jeanne Hedelin) that for one
child stolen at Machecoul, there were seven carried away at Tiffauges.
Macé Sorin confirmed the deposition of the widow Hedelin., and
repeated the circumstances connected with the loss of the children of
Châtellier, Rouen, Gendron, and Lebarbier.
Perrine Rondeau had entered the castle with the company of Jean Labbé.
She had entered a stable, and had found a heap of ashes and powder,
which had a sickly and peculiar smell. At the bottom of a trough she
had found a child’s shirt covered with blood.
Several inhabitants of the bourg of Fresnay, to wit, Perrot,
Parqueteau, Jean Soreau, Catherine Degrépie, Gilles Garnier, Perrine
Viellard, Marguerite Rediern, Marie Carfin, Jeanne Laudais, said that
they had heard Guillaume Hamelin, last Easter, lamenting the loss of
two children.
Isabeau, wife of Guillaume Hamelin, confirmed these depositions,
saving that she had lost them seven years before. She had at that time
four children; the eldest aged fifteen, the youngest aged seven, went
together to Machecoul to buy some bread, but they did not return. She
sat up for them all night and next morning. She heard that another
child had been lost, the son of Michaut Bonnel of S. Ciré de Retz.
Guillemette, wife of Michaut Bonnel, said that her son had been
carried off whilst guarding cows.
Guillaume Rodigo and his wife, living at Bourg-neuf-en-Retz, deposed
that on the eve of last S. Bartholomew’s day, the Sire do Retz lodged
with Guillaume Plumet in his village.
Pontou, who accompanied the marshal, saw a lad of fifteen, named
Bernard Lecanino, servant to Rodigo, standing at the door of his
house. The lad could not speak much French, but only bas-Breton.
Pontou beckoned to him and spoke to him in a low tone. That evening,
at ten o’clock, Bernard left his master’s house, Rodigo and his wife
being absent. The servant maid, who saw him go out, called to him that
the supper table was not yet cleared, but he paid no attention to what
she said. Rodigo, annoyed at the loss of his servant, asked some of
the marshal’s men what had become of him. They replied mockingly that
they knew nothing of the little Breton, but that he had probably been
sent to Tiffauges to be trained as page to their lord.
Marguerite Sorain, the chambermaid alluded to above, confirmed the
statement of Rodigo, adding that Pontou had entered the house and
spoken with Bernard. Guillaume Plumet and wife confirmed what Rodigo
and Sorain had said.
Thomas Aysée and wife deposed to the loss of their son, aged ten, who
had gone to beg at the gate of the castle of Machecoul; and a little
girl had seen him drawn by an offer of meat into the château.
Jamette, wife of Eustache Drouet of S. LĂ©ger, had sent two sons, one
aged ten, the other seven, to the castle to obtain alms. They had not
been seen since.
On the 2nd October the commissioners sat again, and the charges became
graver, and the servants of the marshal became more and more
implicated.
The disappearance of thirteen other children was substantiated under
circumstances throwing strong suspicion on the inmates of the castle.
I will not give the details, for they much resemble those of the
former depositions. Suffice it to say that before the commissioners
closed the inquiry, a herald of the Duke of Brittany in tabard blew
three calls on the trumpet, from the steps of the tower of Bouffay,
summoning all who had additional charges to bring against the Sire de
Retz, to present themselves without delay. As no fresh witnesses
arrived, the case was considered to be made out, and the commissioners
visited the duke, with the information they had collected, in their
hands.
The duke hesitated long as to the steps he should take. Should he
judge and sentence a kinsman, the most powerful of his vassals, the
bravest of his captains, a councillor of the king, a marshal of
France?
Whilst still unsettled in his mind as to the course he should pursue,
he received a letter from Gilles de Retz, which produced quite a
different effect from that which it had been intended to produce.
“MONSIEUR MY COUSIN AND HONOURED SIRE,—
“IT is quite true that I am perhaps the most detestable of all
sinners, having sinned horribly again and again, yet have I never
failed in my religious duties. I have heard many masses, vespers, &c.,
have fasted in Lent and on vigils, have confessed my sins, deploring
them heartily, and have received the blood of our Lord at least once
in the year.
Since I have been languishing in prison, awaiting your honoured
justice, I have been overwhelmed with incomparable repentance for my
crimes, which I am ready to acknowledge and to expiate as is suitable.
“Wherefore I supplicate you, M. my cousin, to give me licence to
retire into a monastery, and there to lead a good and exemplary life.
I care not into what monastery I am sent, but I intend that all my
goods, &c., should be distributed among the poor, who are the members
of Jesus Christ on earth … . Awaiting your glorious clemency, on
which I rely, I pray God our Lord to protect you and your kingdom.
He who addresses you is in all earthly humility,”
“FRIAR GILLES,
Carmelite in intention.”
The duke read this letter to Pierre de l’Hospital, president of
Brittany, and to the Bishop of Nantes, who were those most resolute in
pressing on
Comments (0)