Obrazy na stronie


[ocr errors]

suffering of human creatures, and often with extreme cruelty, is decisive for zoophilia."

The illustrations of zoophilia, which follow, are interesting, because they are so precise; the King's great cruelty has already been mentioned. Commines further says: “ The King inflicted very severe punishments to inspire dread, and for fear of losing his authority, as he himself told me, so that he passed his time in making and ruining men.” As to his morbid interest in animal suffering, the illustrations could not be more explicit. “ March 30, 1479 (paid), to John de Reffou . 535. for having brought in a litter and by water from Fourges to Tours, a hunting dog which was sick.” * “ Oct., 1480, to Jacques de Saint Benoist, for the purchase and carting of a boat which he took by order of the King and for using it to bring a stag to the pool of Gastine, that it might die there.” ** “ July 4, 1481, to Vincent l’Aumosnier, 50s. for having brought, in a three-horse chariot, from Garrannes to Dreux, ... one of the King's greyhounds which was sick.” $ “To Louis Lucas, £6 193. from the King .... for having brought, in a two-horse chariot, a rabbit of the King's from Forges

to Bonne Aventure.

[ocr errors]


83 66

Ballet, Intermittent Morbid States of the Emotions, in his chapter on “ Zoophilia and Zoophobia," says: “That which demonstrates the morbid character of this state, aside from abulia and emotionalism, is the indifference, often complete, of the Zoophiles for their own relations and friends, and for human suffering generally, to which indifference there is sometimes added a veritable cruelty." See also The Zoophil-Psychosis, by Charles L. Dana, M. D., Medical Record, March 6, 1909, and Zoophile et Zoophobie, Extrait de la Belgique Médicale, 1897, par Ch. Féré.

30 mars., 1479. A Jehan du Reffou, maistre d'ostel dudit seigneur, 53 s. 4 d. t. . pour avoir fait mener en une lictière et par eaue, depuis les Forges Jusques à Tours, ung chien courant qui estoit malade." (Arch. nat. kk. 64, fol. 17. Brachet, CXV.)

Octobre, 1480. A Jacques de Saint-Benoist, . . . . pour l'achapt et charroy d'un bastea qu'il a prins par l'ordonnance dudit seigneur, et le fait mener a l'estang de Gastine, pour y faire mourir un cerf." (Arch. nat. kk. 64, fol. 158v, Arcq. p. 393. Brachet, CXVI.)

4 juillet, 1481. A Vincent L'Aumosnier, 50 s. .... pour avoir fait mener en une charette à trois chevaulx ung des lévriers dudit seigneur qui estoit malade, de Garannes à Dreux ...." (Arch. nat. kk. 64, fol. 150. Brachet, CXVI.)

80 “ A Loys Lucas, . . . . 6 1. 10 s. pour avoir faict mener et conduire à une charecte à deux chevaulx ung des lièvres dudit seigneur des forges à Bonne Aventure.(Arch. nat. kk. 64, fol. 116. Brachet, CXVII.)

$ 66

85 66

[ocr errors]

Now, having stated the hypothesis of zoophilia, still following Brachet, the deductive method may be used thus: In the case of the degenerate zoophile there are usually found pronounced symptoms of kleptomania. We are sure to find that Louis was a kleptomaniac. For, by an inconsistency which is the mark of this morbid condition, the sick man steals that which he covets, not because he cannot buy it, but because stealing is more agreeable to him as a kind of conquest.

Thus the records furnish what may be fanciful evidence that Louis did not scruple to rob his subjects' henroosts on occasions: " January, 1483, . . . . In this month the King commanded that his servants should travel all night along all the roads and on the River Loire ahead of certain birds of Turkey, which were being taken to Brittany, to take them and bring them to him." ' Item, two days afterwards the birds were found at 8 o'clock at night and were brought at that time to Montilz." 87

Possibly the next illustration is simply a piece of high-handed tyranny on the King's part, but it took place at a time when he was spending enormous sums for other animals and he could easily have paid his subjects for theirs. Viewed in connection with his other actions at this time, seizure has a suspiciously pathological complexion, if it is not definitely a case of kleptomania :

By the King's grace he commanded a most base thing to be done. ... For he sent commissioners to the town of Rouen and many other places of the realm, who ordered, on the King's authority, under penalty of confiscation of goods and body, that all dogs, large and small, should be brought together to one place. Being thus collected, they carried away the best of these, tied in carts and wagons, to the King.**

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

$7 4

*" Janvier, 1483. Item. audit moys le roy manda que on allast toute nuyt par tous les chemins et sur la riviere de loire audavant de plusieurs oyseaulz de Iurkie, qu'on portoit en Bretaigne, pour les prendre et les lui aporter. Item, Deux jours apres les oyseaulx dessusditz fuerent trouvez a huyt heures de nuyt et les convint porter a ladite heure aux Montilz.” (Comptes de Tours, t. XLIV, fol. 82 V° Brachet, CXVII.)

* “ Cujus etiam rei gratia, rem stultissimam .... fieri jussit. Misit enim commissarios ad urbem Rothomagensem et alia plurima regni loca, qui ex ipsius auctoritate juberent sub pena confiscationis corporis et bonorum ut omnes canes, parvi et magni, ad unam plateam ducerentur. Quibis sic in unum collectis, quos ducerent eligendos, ad regem in carrucis et vehiculis ligatos veherent.

(Thos. Basin, Hist. Lud. III, 168, Brachet, CXVII.)

There remains to consider an incident which took place in 1468, after Louis had ventured to intrust himself to the power of his arch-enemy, Charles the Bold, at Péronne. Relying upon his subtlety and cunning words to secure his ends, Louis had boldly gone in person to Charles at his castle in Péronne. The discussion had gone on smoothly enough for several days when Charles learned that Louis was arousing the people of Liège-Charles' subjects-against him. In a terrible passion Charles imprisoned Louis, threatened to depose him, and even to take his life. Louis in his terror agreed to the most humiliating conditions of peace with Charles. Among others, he was compelled to march in person along with Charles against the people of Liège, and actually hurled back the cry, “ Vive la Bourgogne!” against the people of that city when they shouted “ Vive la France!” The incident took place upon his return to Paris after this chagrin of Péronne. It is as follows:

And on the same day (Saturday, November 19, 1468] there were taken for the King, in the city of Paris, all the magpies, jays, and owls, either in cages or not, belonging to private individuals, and brought before him. And the places from which these birds were taken were written down and registered, as well as all that could speak words such as “Thief," “Wanton," " Hey, get out," " Pérette, give me a drink,” and several other fine phrases which those birds had been taught and knew how to say. Then, again, by another commission of the King there were sought out and taken all the stags, hinds, and deer that could be found in Paris and were brought to Amboise. So

The account which Gaguin gives of this affair is substantially the same. He says: “I doubt whether I should write down at all what actually took place, a deed in its novelty unworthy of a king. Magpies and grackles which had been taught to whistle or to imitate the human voice, which were kept in cages by the Parisians for

89 “ Et, ce mesmes jour, fuerent prinses pour le roy. . . .. En ladicte ville de Paris tous les pyes, jays, chouetes estans en cage ou autrement et estans privée, pour toutes les porter devers le roy. Et estoit escript et enregistré le lieu ou avoient este prins lesdiz oiseaulz et aussi tout ce qu'ilz savoient dire, comme: ‘Larron! Paillart! Filz de Putain! Va hors. Val Pérette, donne moy à boire!' et plusieurs autres beaux motz que iceulx oiseaux savoient bien dire et qu'on leur aavoit aprins. Et depuis encores, par autre commission du roy .... fut venu querir et prendre audit lieu de Paris touts les cerfz, biches, et grues, qu'on y peust trouver et tout fait mener a Amboise. Journal de Jean de Roye, I, 220, Brachet,


amusement in the house, and soon afterwards stags and deer, all were commanded by Louis to be seized and brought to Amboise."

These two texts report two important facts: First, on November 19, 1468, after seizing all the talking birds (magpies and jays), as well as those that were mute, the King had them all transported to his park at Amboise, and a little later all the stags, hinds, and deer which the Parisians were keeping in their gardens were carried off to the same place. Second, this double zoological seizure by the King, twice by armed force, of the rare and curious animals of the Parisians for his own use appeared inexplicable and revolted public opinion.

Any attempt to justify this bizarre act psychologically, immediately raises the following questions: (a) Why did the King seize the birds at all? (b) Why a second time the animals? (c) Why seizure instead of purchase—an act which must have seemed both tyrannical and incomprehensible? (d) Why the double seizure immediately after Péronne, when he needed the support of public opinion? And (e) how is this strange action explained by contemporaries? How by modern historians ?

Taking the questions up in inverse order: His contemporaries have no explanation to make. Gaguin, who wrote in 1501, and who would let pass no opportunity to discredit the King if he could, is very much amazed at the King's action, but he does not know what to make of it. Commines, who must have had some ideas about it, for his own purpose conceals the affair, and we are led to suspect that he conceals it in order to protect the King's reputation.

Modern historians, unable to offer anything better, have fallen upon the very remote similarity of the words “ Péronne ” and

Pérette" as an explanation. Pérette de Châlons had been a mistress to the King some time before this, and although the chroniclers record that the birds said “ Pérette,” the historians have substituted the word “ Péronne ” as better explaining the puzzling circumstance. One after the other, Duclos, Sismondi, Barante, Hare, and Michelet, have explained the seizure of the birds on the

*" Quod vero sequitur an scriberem aliquando dubitavi facinus profecto sua novitate indignum rege. Picas et graculos qui in caveis humanas voces vel sibilare vel imitari edocti apud Parisios ad voluptatem domesticæ alebantur: Moxque cervos et grues capi omnes et Ambasiam duci Ludovicus imperat.” Robert Gaguin, Compendium de Francorum Gestis, Liv. X, fo CXLVII, V°-CXLVIII, Brachet, CVI.I.

ا ور و

ground that the word “ Péronne” reminded the King of his humiliation. Duclos says: “The chronicler further tells us that the same day the King ordered the magpies, jays, and other tame birds to be brought to him, with the names of those to whom they belonged. And it is the common opinion that he did this because the birds had been taught to say “ Péronne.'

Sismondi goes a little further in his explanation when he says: Nevertheless the King was ashamed of the trap into which he had plunged of his own accord, and did not wish to enter Paris for fear of exposing himself to the ridicule of the people; he even feared so much the raillery to which he ought to be the butt that he seized all the magpies. jays, and crows which had been taught to speak and registered the words which their masters had taught them to pronounce, meaning to punish all those who had made them repeat the name Péronne, or Pérette de Châlons, . . . . then the King's mistress."

Barante thinks that it was in the cause of public order that the birds were taken:

The precautions were indeed so great that there were seized by the King's order all the magpies, jays, and crows, and other privately owned birds to whom the inhabitants of Paris had taught the words “ Thief," “Wanton,” and “Pérette, give me a drink.” The commission responsible for this seizure wrote in its register what each bird knew how to say and with whom it had been found. Such was the fear of what might excite disorder or give offense either to the King or to the Princes.

[ocr errors]

91 6


* “ La Chronique dit que le même jour le roi se fit apporter les pies, les geais et autres oiseauzx privés, avec les noms de ceux auxquels ils appartenoient, et la tradition est que c'etoit parce qu'on leur avoit appris à dire Péronne.” Duclos, Hist. de Louis XI, ed. de La Haye, 1750, I, 398. Brachet, CIX.

Cependant le roi etoit honteux du piège où il étoit allé se jeter de lui-même; il ne volut point entrer dans Paris, pour ne pas s'exposer aux propos du peuple; il craignait même si fort les railleries auxquelles il sentoit qu'il devoit être en butte qu'il fit saisir toutes les pies, les geais, les corbeaux auxquels on avait appris a parler, et enregistrer les mots que leurs maîtres leur avoient enseigné à prononcer pour punir tous ceux qui leur auroient fait répéter le nom ou de Péronne ou de Pérette de Châlons, bourgeoise de Paris, alors sa maitresse.” Sismondi, Hist. d. Français, XIV, 283; Brachet, CIX.

. . . Les précautions furent même si grandes, que l'on saisit par ordre du roi toutes les pies, geais, corbeaux et autres oiseaux apprivoisés, à qui des habitants de Paris avaient appris des paroles, comme: ‘Larron, paillard, va, dehors: Pérette, donne moi à boire. Le commissaire chargé de cette saisie inscrivit exactement sur son registre ce que chaque oiseau savait dire, et chez qui on l'avait trouvé; tant on craignait ce qui pouvait exciter quelque désordre et offenser soit le roi, soit les princes.” Barante, Hist. des ducs de Bourgogne, éd. Gachard, II, 332, col. 2; Brachet, CIX.

« PoprzedniaDalej »