|
|
|
Book Review
| James R. Farr, A Tale of Two Murders: Passion and Power in Seventeenth-Century France, Durham: Duke University Press, 2005. Pp. 226. $74.95 cloth (ISBN 0-8223-3459-3); $21.95 paper (ISBN 0-8223-3471-2).
|
| A double murder occurred in Dijon on the evening of September 6, 1638. Pierre Baillet and his valet, Philibert Neugot, entered the house of Pierre's first cousin, Philippe Giroux, and were never seen alive again. Both men were high court judges. Baillet was a presiding judge or president of the sovereign financial court of Burgundy, the Chambre des Comptes, and Giroux was a president of the sovereign judicial court, the Parlement. Giroux had invited Baillet to visit him to resolve the bad feeling between them. It was widely rumored that Baillet's wife, Marie Fryot, was Giroux's mistress. She was the passion of the book's subtitle, and Giroux was presumed to have murdered Baillet so they could marry. Helped by two servants, he allegedly stabbed the men to death and buried them in the courtyard privy. Two other servants were implicated as eyewitnesses, but not as participants. Giroux was convicted of the murders on May 8, 1643, and beheaded. The book does not comment on his guilt or innocence, leaving that to the reader, but analyzes the lengthy investigation of the murders to summarize seventeenth-century French criminal law and procedure. |
1
|
|
Six months passed before an investigation began, only after a request by Baillet's mother and wife. The victims' bodies had to be recovered before the crime of murder could be declared, and conviction required two unimpeachable witnesses or the confession of the accused. There were no bodies, so the investigation, conducted by a friend of Giroux, proceeded slowly. He was replaced in March 1640 by two other commissioners, Antoine Jacquot and Michel Millière, who did the investigating, supervised and assisted by fourteen Parlement judges. They issued numerous monitoires, urging witnesses with information about the men's disappearance to come forward and give sworn testimony. Witnesses close to Giroux gave depositions, and the commissioners began constructing a case against him. |
2
|
|
This was possible because Giroux had recently lost the protection of a powerful patron, Henri II de Bourbon, prince de Condé, governor of Burgundy. Condé was the "power" in the subtitle, and his abandonment of Giroux allowed the investigation to proceed. Giroux was placed under house arrest in March and imprisoned in July 1640. His interrogation began that August, and he used depositions to defend himself and undermine the prosecution's case. The circumstantial evidence against him mounted, so he attacked the integrity and impartiality of the investigators, especially royal attorney Pierre de Xaintonge and commissioner Michel Millière. They were kinsmen of Pierre Saumaise de Chassans, another Parlement judge who was Giroux's bitter enemy. Their families had been feuding for decades, and Saumaise had sought to become Condé's client. Giroux accused Saumaise of suborning witnesses. In fact, Saumaise was a parti instigant in the case, someone who had joined the prosecution as a private party, assuming much of the legal costs, ostensibly to see justice done, but more often to use public law for private vengeance. This device saved the crown money. |
3
|
|
Early in 1643, Giroux sought to sway public opinion by publishing factums or pamphlets defending himself and damaging the prosecution's case. Saumaise responded with his own factums, refuting those of Giroux. The king now authorized the Parlement "to put to the question" key witnesses in order to obtain the truth, a euphemism for legal torture used to ensure honesty in capital cases. In Burgundy, this was the leg boot, which crushed victims' legs and feet. Giroux expected to be tortured, but was not. The leg boot, however, was used on two of his servants, who were his alleged accomplices. They did not incriminate him, but others did. |
4
|
|
In April 1643, acting on information received by Xaintonge, two sets of bones were found in a trunk in the storage shed of Giroux's godmother. Giroux had allegedly left the trunk with her. He was evasive, giving a confused account, and then denied all knowledge of the trunk. The remains were positively identified as the victims from clothing remnants by the tailor, shoemaker, and cloth merchant who had made or sold the clothing. With the bodies discovered, the crime of murder was declared, and the trial took place a month later, lasting only a morning with Giroux's guilt and conviction a foregone conclusion. There was no jury. Giroux maintained his innocence and never confessed. The Giroux affair illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the French system. The lengthy investigation by the prosecution builds a strong case, so conviction is likely. Although other scenarios may be ignored, the court's time is seldom wasted on frivolous prosecutions. |
5
|
|
I enjoyed this book immensely. Beautifully written and carefully structured, it uses the narration of a murder mystery to demonstrate how the early modern French legal system worked, in particular how the informal system of patronage and influence was used to manipulate the legal system. Based almost entirely on archival sources, the book is meticulously researched and exhibits exemplary scholarship. It was written for non-specialists and specialists alike, so it has numerous explanations, a terminology translated into English, and an unobtrusive scholarly apparatus. It is a tour de force, combining popular and scholarly history, and highly recommended to everyone. |
6
|
| Sharon Kettering
|
| Montgomery College in Maryland |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|