Talk:Gilles de Rais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 10 September 1404?[edit]

There seems to be some belief that his birth date can be pinned down to 10 September 1404. Is this supported by reputable sources? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) His date of birth is unknown, but his parents married on February 5th 1404 so an early September birth was unlikely. Morbid Morag (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously Mentioned but Unresolved: Siege of Paris Hyperlink in 'Military' Section[edit]

Last noted over a year ago, the hyperlink 'Siege of Paris' in the 'Military' section leads to an article on the Franco-Prussian era siege, which occurred some 400 years later. Such a link may not even be necessary as the previous 'Hundred Years War' link provides sufficient context in absence of any separate article of the event being referenced. :) 71.203.203.17 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible: Rais Secured Duke John V's release in 1420? Duke John V (1339 – 1 November 1399)[edit]

This reference in the article, under "Military career," obviously cannot refer correctly to Duke John V, who died in 1399; note that Rais was reportedly born 1404. However, there was confusion in this lineage due to the Breton War of Succession; the French view was that they denied legitimacy of the earlier John IV of Montfort. So perhaps here the intended reference was not John V, but instead was his son, John VI the Wise? The French at the time would have referred to this John VI as Jean V le Sage, but not as John V, the generally acknowledged English designation for his father. 75.139.134.105 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pity no-one responded to this comment over the last year and a bit! Paul B (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References 2[edit]

Would it be improper to mention Cradle of Filth's album "Godspeed on the Devil's Thunder" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.62.23 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, why hasn't anybody mentioned Fate/Zero's "Caster"? He is Bluebeard, AKA Gilles de Rais after all. Granted, he's a supporting character in the light novel and anime adaptation of said light novel by Urobuchi Gen-san, with Emiya Kiritsugu as the alleged main character, but with such a large ensemble cast, -- in the anime adaptation at least -- even Kiritsugu appeared to be a supporting character. My point is, supporting character or not, I think Fate/Zero's "Caster" deserves a mention here. (Urobuchi, Gen. Fate/Zero. Tokyo: Type-Moon, 2006.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.146.71 (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

Is it relevant that Jean-Yves Goëau-Brissonnière was and is a Freemason? To underline this so heavily hardly seems neutral, considering that the Catholic Church regards the rehabilitation trial as a Freemasonic conspiracy. He was not, in any case, the prime mover of the retrial; that would be Gilbert Prouteau. As he tells it, M. Goëau-Brissonnière was a good friend who offered his legal expertise and advocacy. Morbid Morag (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems important if the Catholic Church regards the rehabilitation trial as a Freemasonic conspiracy. Would be nice to see a source for that. --2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:168 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Catholic Church ever regard the rehabilitation trial as a "Freemasonic conspiracy" ? At that time, Gilbert Prouteau send also a letter to the pope in order to rehabilitate Gilles de Rais ; according to Prouteau, the answer was evasive but not unfriendly (see Gilbert Prouteau and Xavier Armange, « Je passe aux aveux ! » : entretiens avec Xavier Armange, Le Château-d'Olonne, d'Orbestier, coll. "Élite & rature",‎ 2002, ISBN 2-84238-045-2)... Nonetheless, Goëau-Brissonnière was unquestionably a Freemason who also prefaced the book Plaidoyer pour Gilles de Rais written by the Freemason Jean-Pierre Bayard, another literary attempt to exonerate De Rais (read the French article for the sources). But I can only remember the book of the historian Jacques Heers criticizing the "cliché" of the terrible Inquisition used as a argument by some partisans of de Rais' innocence, so it's not safe to assume that Heers specifically mentions an anticlericalism traditionally associated (in France at least) with Freemasonry. Guise (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims discrepency[edit]

The text puts it at 80-200 with a high end estimate of 600. The textbox summary says 300-900. Nothing is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.148 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With such a broad range of possible victims, the article is worthless regarding this matter. It should admit its ignorance and state with absolute certainty that we do not know how many if any children were tortured or killed by Gille de Rais. SanVitores (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

Was he a homosexual? --41.151.21.66 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of sexual morality at the time was not nearly as developed as it is in modern times - this is one reason why scholars still debate the context behind the procreation sonnets to this day. They didn't differentiate that much between what today we call homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, or extramarital sex. Laws proscribing sodomy were selectively enforced, to put it mildly. Regardless, it is highly unlikely that we will find a reliable source specifically describing de Rais as a homosexual. Most of the sources we have describing him as a sadist and a pedophile derive from contemporary screeds, and are prone to the same bias that cast Richard III as an evil, deformed megalomaniac. More to the point: since the sources suggest de Rais tortured and defiled both boys and girls, the answer is likely no. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He spoke fluent Latin as a child, really?[edit]

This is actually not possible. There was no Latin vernacular in the 15th century, or for quite a while before that. Latin was then and is a dead language with no fluent speakers. Latin had segued into the Romance languages. It was a dead language. I don't have the sources referenced at hand (Benedetti and Wolf) or I'd just correct it myself. Someone's either misreading them (likely) or the sources are wrong - so I don't know whether he read Latin or whether the assertion itself is simply entirely wrong and part of some rather extensive hyperbole on his childhood genius.

While it's vaguely possible, I rather doubt he was illuminating manuscripts as a boy either. Monks did that, not children. A lot of this article seems rather dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.30.240 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since Benedetti and Wolf are not medieval historians by profession, theirs works about Gilles de Rais are more literary than scientific. The result is an extremely disappointing article... for now, at least. Guise (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is possible. Many learned individuals learnt and spoke Latin from an early age. Many still do. This is nothing to do with Latin being the vernacular.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's possible, you're right about that. :-) But we don't know much about Gilles de Rais' childhood, and certainly nothing about his Latin speaking abilities at this time. Regards. Guise (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moot courts[edit]

It is not correct to say that "Gilles was retried in a Moot court, an unofficial process of rehabilitation in his home country of France". A moot is not a real court - it is more of a debate. It is known world wide, not specifically in France. And it is not a unofficial form of rehabilitation. This one in particular seems to have been a publicity stunt, rather than a serious trial. A "moot court" is a different, mediaeval, institution, which has nothing to do with the trial that occurred.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from the referenced sourced, you are correct. How about if you go ahead and make the changes to the article that you deem needed? --Legion fi (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I used Moot court as a (bad) translation but indeed, it was mostly a publicity stunt rather than a serious trial, as specified in the references I have mentioned in the article. The public authorities and the judicial body had no involvement in this media event organised by a bunch of buddies, so even the term "process" is inadequate (I wanted to focus clumsily on the "unofficial" term). Thanks for your remarks, Royalcourtier. Regards. Guise (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the King of France a pseudo-historian?[edit]

King of France seems to be fully on the side of revisionists; which combined with the joke nature of a trial done entirely on evidence form torture and hearsay I think calls for a much more balanced account of revision vs tradition than not even covering the trials internal contradictions.

Here is the King's take

https://gillesderaiswasinnocent.blogspot.com/2013/03/wrongly-unduly-and-without-cause.html

Contemporaries thought the trial was a joke, this should be reflected. Medieval courts managed to make Jews confess to identical crimes I think they should be taken with a salt mine when they produce a blood libel conviction with torture, threat of torture, hearsay and conjecture as the only evidence as happened in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.110.136 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous. About the king Charles VII, this blog is just reviving the theory of Salomon Reinach, whimsically repeated by Gilbert Prouteau.
In short, just read Noël Valois and Matei Cazacu : these two historians explained more convincingly Prigent de Coëtivy's steps in order to regain the inheritance of Gilles de Rais. --Guise (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over year of birth[edit]

Gilles de Rais' year of birth is usually given as 1404, based on various dates that we do know, including the year he came into his inheritance. Almost all biographies (Bossard, Heers etc) agree on 1404. Recent edits here insist on 1405, a date given only by Matei Cazacu. This would make Gilles 15 when he had his first experience of war and not yet 24 when he was made Marshal of France - not impossible, granted, but unlikely. Unless new evidence has come to light, which I do not think is the case, 1404 should be the default. 77.86.63.161 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The year of birth remains unknown but you'd better check, update and cross-reference all sources. They're quoted and summarized in this note of the Wikipedia article in French.
First, it should be noted that Abbot Bossard made several mistakes (and Jacques Heers too, as highlighted by Matei Cazacu) : for example, Bossard erroneously says that GdR was born in Machecoul. Bossard & Heers sometimes copy the errors of their predecessors : like Augustin du Paz, Bossard believes that the marriage of Gilles' parents took place in February 1404 but the archives refer to this wedding at a future time, as the paleographists René Blanchard and Matei Cazacu have pointed out (in a nutshell, Cazacu notes that the Parliament had to approve the agreement between Jean de Craon and Guy II de Montmorency-Laval before the marriage could take place. Since the approval has been done on May 2, 1404, Cazacu deduced that GdR wasn't born before 1405).
So Bossard's and Heers' books are obsolete on several points, like several biographies of GdR (including Benedetti's and Wolf's books on which this English Wikipedia article is mainly based, unfortunately).
Besides, quality sources must always prevail over quantity : the medievalists Olivier Bouzy (Contamine, Bouzy and Hélary, Jeanne d'Arc. Histoire et dictionnaire, Paris: Robert Laffont, 2012) and Claude Gauvard ("Gilles de Rais en procès", in Jean-Marc Berlière (ed.), Les grandes affaires criminelles du Moyen Âge à nos jours, Paris: Perrin, 2020) find rather convincing Cazacu's interpretation of the archives since these historians mention "1405" or "circa 1405". Jacques Chiffoleau ("Gilles de Rais, ogre ou serial killer ?", in L'Histoire #335,‎ October 2008) also refers to "1404 or 1405" (on the other hand, "September 1" is just an assumption made by Cazacu).
Furthermore, the year "circa 1405" is at most indicative and Gilles de Rais was presumably even younger : the medievalist Marcelle-Renée Reynaud discovered a document that states his age ("14 to 15 years old") in February 1422.
Finally, the datation of Gilles de Rais' "first experience of war" is controversial [1] because the medieval chronicles initially mention his name from the second half of the year 1427, by evoking the war against the English at the edge of Maine. Cazacu strongly suggests that there were previous military engagements (1420 civil war in the duchy of Brittany, battles of La Brossinière, Verneuil and St. James) but he admits that this is a matter of conjecture. We don't know precisely the military nature of Craon and Rais' "good and notable services" when both grandfather and grandson took the side of Duke John VI in the course of the year 1420 : there is no indication that GdR (whether he was a young page boy or anything else) fought then in person, riding along the battle line, as an accomplished knight.
If some professional historian deduces another year of birth by relying on "the year GdR came into his inheritance", just cite your sources. --Guise (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article content and presentation[edit]

The description of his murders sound more like snuff porn than an encyclopedia article. I think it may be a little too enthusiastic. 216.36.165.219 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before [2], this Wikipedia article is disappointing and sensationalistic because it relies too much on Benedetti's and Wolf's books. In order to improve the whole, it is necessary to take advantage of the best secondary sources in French (Chiffoleau, Cazacu, Meurger, Bourdeaut, Bouzy, etc.) & English (notably Zrinka Stahuljak) in order to mention these vivid details of violence, torture and murder as part of the historical analysis and psychopathological readings [3]. --Guise (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something interesting related to this is how various scholars consider likely that much was exaggerated 1400s politically motivated propaganda of the time (also the case for Joan d'Arc), making it difficult for modern historians to distinguish between fact and myth, especially after a tradition of past writings about it. Defeating revisionism with modern critical revisionism is always controversial. But the article at least currently (as of 2022) includes the mention of such attempts. —PaleoNeonate – 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube bio and book references[edit]

There's a YouTube biography that might be useful to source. I see the controversy section has been protected, so I'll just drop this here.

Gilles de Rais: Serial-Killing Nobleman, Or Witch Hunt Victim? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyXTDabEYdg

He references the mock trial and a book written about it (the "Not Guilty" section starts a bit after the 15m mark). Fwiw, it seems pretty suspicious: accusations of witchcraft are almost always salacious. So... the fact that the Duke of Brittany, who was given the authority to prosecute, received all the titles to Rais' former lands after his conviction seems pretty shady. That and, ok, he was supposed to be trying to summon the devil but confessed after they threatened excommunication? Also, his "confession" says he burned the bodies in the fireplace. Nah... a fireplace doesn't get hot enough to burn a body, at least not completely. So they said he threw the "ashes" in the moat. Well, then, there should have been bones in the moat. No bones were ever found... the whole "trial" sounds pretty fishy. The only damning evidence is the testimony from parents that they gave kids to him for jobs. But almost all witchcraft "trials" include phony testimony from "witnesses."

So maybe what the "questions" section needs is some links to the history of witchcraft trials? In any event, I think some light edits (for example, that there was no physical evidence seems like a thing that should be mentioned) and a reference to the New York Times article and Margo K. Juby's book (The Martyrdom of Gilles de Rais, https://www.amazon.com/Martyrdom-Gilles-Rais-Margot-Juby/dp/1729561357). This website published an article (Sonya Vatomsky 2 June 2017) as well: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/gilles-de-rais-bluebeard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyingpo (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scholarly article[edit]

Ok, so I found this:

Parsons, Ben. "Sympathy for the devil: Gilles de Rais and his modern apologists." Fifteenth Century Studies 37 (2012): 113-137.

The purpose of Parsons's article is to argue that de Rais is not indicative or emblematic of the Middle Ages. But he discusses the controversy here (page 122):

Despite being challenged by a number of writers, such theories have found wide support.67 Rossell Hope Robbins and E. M. Butler have agreed that “it is difficult to place any credence in the evidence” against Gilles, while in 1992 an informal tribunal d’arbitrage, organized by the former ministre de la Justice Michel Crépeau and the novelist Gilbert Proteau, concluded that Gilles was “the victim of circumstantial evidence,” and that his name should be cleared.68 Although this body of scholarship effectively detaches Gilles from the charges against him, this reasoning only emphasizes the link between the crimes and medieval culture. For these commentators, Gilles’s “crimes” become a direct expression of the beliefs of the Middle Ages, being a collection of the widespread myths and attitudes particular to the era, a consolidation of “Catholic logic.”69 Fleuret is most explicit on this score, commenting that “stories from folklore made up the flimsy tissue of charges,” before positing that “the people of the befuddled Middle Ages” had “pliable imaginations.”70 Reinach gives a similar argument, describing the charges of child-murder as “the same . . . that orthodox Christians raised against schismatics, the Waldensians, the Fraticelli, witches, Jews.”71 While Gilles’s offenses are considered a fiction, they derive their fabric from specifically medieval convictions. Once again the Middle Ages as a whole are deemed responsible for the crimes imputed to the baron, as his transgressions are generated directly out of the common stock of the medieval imagination.

To my credit ;) most of the apologists are coming from the perspective of discounting witch trials. Here are the references from above:

68 Rossell Hope Robbins, The Encyclopaedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (London: Peter Neville, 1959), 404; Alan Riding, “Bluebeard Has His Day In Court: Not Guilty,” New York Times, 17 November 1992, 38. See E. M. Butler, Ritual Magic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949), 100; Gilbert Prouteau, Gilles de Rais ou la geule du loup (Monaco: Éditions du Rocher, 1992); Jean-Pierre Bayard, Plaidoyer pour Gilles de Rais, maréchal de France, 1404–1440 (Etréchy: Éditions du Soleil natal, 1992). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyingpo (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coercion should be mention in guilt.[edit]

His coerced confession should be mentioned much sooner. The article reads as if we know this man was guilty as fact, while 5th paging how they found him guilty. We don't give the Salem witches the same treatment despite multiple witnesses and "guilty" pleas in the face of torture. 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:FD5D:1BF:C4AD:740B (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue[edit]

@Xxanthippe, @Favonian, @Sunuraju, @Wizardman, and to anyone reading this:

According to Earwig's Copyright Checker, which checks how similar a Wikipedia article is to a source to show if the article has violated copyright. According to Earwig, the Gilles de Rais article violated copyright when most of the article's contents was copied off of a forum called Historum in this page, which was created back in 27 December 2011. The comparison came off a shocking 94.3% similarity rate, implying a copyright violation, even though Historum is a forum.

Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia Gilles de Rais article existed way before the thread on Gilles de Rais on the History Forum was even created. Here is the article on 22 December 2011, 5 days before the thread on the forum was created, and all the wording in the Historum forum was also on that article at the time. As a result, we can assume that the wording in this article is actually older than the wording in the Historum forum, and that the users of that thread just simply copy and pasted what was on the Gilles de Rais article on Wikipedia to make their thread. Consequently, this copyright violation was simply an error by Earwig's checker.

Regards,

祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 16:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I think that the protagonist should be referred to by the same name throughout, not as Gilles, Rais or the Baron in different places. Choose one and stick to it. It will be less confusing. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

All right, it's done, except for quotations. --Guise (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great progress on the page[edit]

Whoever updated this recently is a legend, this page has been really low on actual academic references for such a long time. It now looks much more similar to the French article too. Amazing work, and now more information is accessible for readers in English :) Marukidio1051 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilles_de_Rais&oldid=1194315173"