Follow
Fables were often created to enhance a true story, the basis is often fact, even if only the names and places, fables are still valid genealogical sources.
Banishment was a punishment used greatly on the island, it is most different to emigration and this project will hope to track down the poor souls who were so banished from their homeland, often for very strange reasons.
The peculiar beliefs and superstitions can be revealing, and often based on something we have discovered more recently to explain away. IE ergot in rye bread.
Banished
29th May, 1613 Olivier Omont, Cecile Vaultier, his wife, and Guillemine Omont, their daughter. (see witches)
30th June, 1613. Laurence L’Eustache, wife of Thomas Le Comte, was also banished from the island.
Is it not well known how, when that noted witch, Marie Mouton, was banished from the island for her evil doings, the cutter that landed her at Southampton encountered a most terrific gale on its return? And how the captain and crew were ready to depose upon oath that during the height of the storm they had seen Marie, sometimes perched on the top of the mast, and at other times astride on the jib-boom, tearing the sails to shreds and tatters? https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52834/52834-h/52834-h.htm#FNanchor_155
Witches and Witchcraft https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52834/52834-h/52834-h.htm#CHAPTER_X===
1563 1563 - show that Martin Tulouff, Francoise Regnoff, his mother and Collette Salmon were sentenced to death as witches. Collette Gascoigne was whipped, had an ear cut off and was then banished. Catherine Cauches and her two daughters Guillemine and Perotine were given a short trial. They were condemned to ‘la profonde fosse’ (prison cell) in Castle Cornet before being led to Tower Hill to be burnt to death. http://access.bl.uk/item/pdf/lsidyv38c249b8
15th May, 1581. Katherine Eustace and her daughter were accused by common consent of practising the art of witchcraft in the island.
The wife of Collas Cousin deposed that having refused to give milk to the accused, saying that there were poorer people to whom she would rather give, her cow then gave blood instead of milk.
Johan Le Roux deposed that having been seized with great pains in his knee, he believed himself to be bewitched by Katherine Eustace, so his wife went to the latter and threatened to denounce her to the Royal Court; after that he got better.
28th October, 1581. Robert Asheley, found dead in the garden behind St. Peter Port parsonage, suspected of having committed suicide by shooting himself with an arquebus. This having been proved according to the law, the Court, after hearing the speech made by Her Majesty’s Procureur, found that the said Robert Asheley shall be carried to some unfrequented spot and there buried, a heap of stones being placed on his body,[149] and thus he shall be deprived of burial in the spot where Christian remains are placed; and that all his goods shall be confiscate to Her Majesty the Queen.
25th February, 1583. Collas de la Rue is accused of using the arts of witchcraft, and of grievously vexing and tormenting divers subjects of Her Majesty.
Matthieu Cauchez deposed that his wife being in a pining languorous condition, having heard that Collas de la Rue was a wizard, and knowing that[308] he frequently visited his house, he asked him if he could help his wife. Collas replied:—“As to her she is an ‘in pace’ (sic), she will not live much longer.”
Thomas Behot deposed (read more.......) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52834/52834-h/52834-h.htm#CHAPTER_X
Collas De la Rue also told him that Collas Rouget had gone to Normandy to seek a cure. Had he only consulted him first, he need not have gone so far to be cured. In conclusion he said that on his conscience he believed and affirmed the said De la Rue to be a wizard.
Richard de Vauriouf deposed that having had several differences with Collas De la Rue on the subject of his cattle, which had caused him annoyance.......
Pierre Tardif, who had had some law-suits with Collas De la Rue, deposed that thereupon his daughter was taken ill........
17th December, 1585 Collas Hugues appeared in person and showed his child to us in the Court. This said child cannot talk except at random and with an impediment in its speech that none can cure; and he declares his conviction that his said child is “detained” (detenu) by some wizard, and he will take his oath that it is Collas De la Rue who “detains” him, inasmuch that the latter threatened him that he would afflict him through his most precious treasure (du plus cher joyau qu’il peut avoir). On this declaration, Her Majesty’s Procureur testified to us that the said De la Rue had formerly been imprisoned for sorcery, and now, that though he had not always been proved guilty, yet that to all outward appearance he had practised the art of witchcraft, and so much so, that new complaints being made against him, he had demanded the arrest and the confiscation of the goods of the said De la Rue, which was granted.
Dec 1585 James Blanche affirms that on a certain day, having promised to go for a day’s work to the aforesaid De la Rue, and not having done so, that he was heard to say to one of his people, that he, Blanche, should repent, and that soon afterwards his wife was seized with an illness which lasted for nearly a year. So that, finding the said De la Rue near “La Croix Guerin,”[151] he asked him if he could give him something to cure his wife. Then the said De la Rue took an apple, which he broke into six parts, of which he retained one, and gave the remaining five pieces to the said Blanche to carry back to his wife, forbidding him at the same time to eat a mouthful. Notwithstanding, when he quitted De la Rue, he ate the said apple, and at that moment the said De la Rue appeared before him, he having not yet reached his own house, and taxed him with having eaten the forbidden apple, and the same day his wife was cured. He, Blanche, says that this is a man given to threats, and is much suspected and generally denounced as being a wizard, and he has even heard that people have called him “sorcier” to his face and he has not resented it.
Dec 1585 Jehennet des Perques deposed that at divers times the said Collas De la Rue went to the fishermen and foretold to them when they should have fine weather and when they should have storms.… He was commonly reported to be a wizard. He also deposed that on a certain day, he being at the house of Collas Henry, where the said De la Rue had quarrelled with the wife of Collas de Bertran, who had called him “sorcier” (wizard), he threatened her that she should repent, and that the said Mrs. de Bertran fell in descending the stairs (cheut aval les degrez) and bruised herself from head to foot.
25th of March, 1585-6 It appears that Collas De la Rue was executed, for, in a lawsuit against Denis de Garis for concealing a treasure that he had found in his house, it is said that the aforesaid treasure was found on the day of Collas De la Rue’s execution, that is to say the 25th of March, 1585-6.
24th November, 1602. Marie Roland is accused of sorcery.
John Sohier witnesses that the aforesaid Marie, having been with him one day at the house of the Henry’s, together with Joan Henry, whose child lay ill, she confessed to having bewitched the child, and on being asked in what manner, said that she had put its clothes one night by the stream (auprès du douit) and that she and her master the Devil then entered into the house of the said Henry by the chimney, and found the said child by the hearth, and with a splinter she pricked the child, and it was bewitched for three months.
10th April, 1613. An inquest on the suspicions of witchcraft against Olivier Omont, Cecile Vaultier, his wife, and Guillemine Omont, their daughter. (see Banished)
Jacques Bailleul deposed that having refused alms to Olivier Omont his son was taken with a pain in his ear which lasted twenty-four hours, that the doctor said that he could not understand it (qu’il n’y connaissait rien), that he believes that Olivier is a wizard.
Guillemine Le Pastourell affirms that Omont came begging from her, and she said that he was stronger than her and that he could gain his bread if necessary without begging, that the next day she was taken ill, that she remained ill for three weeks, that Omont, having come again, gave her some bread, and after that she recovered. During her illness all her cattle died. She believed it was from some spell cast by the said Omont.
Marie Sohier witnesses that the day after the death of her husband Olivier Omont came to her house demanding bread. She replied that having numerous children to feed she could not spare him any, that he went away grumbling. At that very moment her daughter Marguerite, aged six years, was taken ill, and when they gave her some bread she threw it away and ate cinders by the handful. That her daughter Marie, one year old, was taken ill one hour after the departure of Omont, and she had remained ill for two years. That having met Omont at the Mont Durand she threatened to throw a stone at him, and called him “sorcier,” that on returning home she gave a lump of white bread to her child, who ate it all, and since then is quite well. She believes that the said Omont was the cause of the sickness of her children.
Philippin Le Goubey witnesses that Olivier Omont having begged for cider from his wife, she refused him, and was instantly afflicted with grievous pains; that he entreated the said Omont several times to come into his house to see his wife, but that he always refused; that one day he forced him to enter, and he put one foot in the house and the other out, and then he fled; that rushing after him he threatened to denounce him to justice if he would not cure his wife; that then he said that she would be well again in a fortnight, but that he could not cure her at that moment; that he forced him to return to the house, and that, when there, he threatened to keep him there until he was delivered up to justice; that at that very moment his wife was cured of the worst of her pains; that having shortly afterwards come into the town to make a notification of these things, he found that the said Omont had already taken a boat and fled from the country.
Pierre Simon, of Torteval, being at the Hougue Antan,[152] met Olivier Omont lying with his face against the ground. He tried to awake him, shook him, and heard a buzzing (un bourdonnement) but saw nothing. Feeling rather frightened he left him and went on towards the Buttes[153] of Torteval, and then came back to the place where he had left him. Omont suddenly awoke, having his mouth full of mud,[317] and his face all disfigured (défiguré). Omont having been questioned replied that he had fallen from the cliff, and that Pierre Nant had seen him fall.
Several people witnessed that having refused alms to Omont and to his wife, their cattle fell ill and died, their cows gave blood instead of milk, or gave nothing at all, their sows and their cows miscarried, and misfortunes happened to their wives.
29th June, 1613. Thomas Mancell witnessed that his wife having refused alms to Omont, their cow fell ill, and they were obliged to kill it. Jean Hamon, who flayed the cow, cut it at the shoulder, and “there issued a black beast as large as a little ‘cabot’ (a small fish). Its throat was such that one could easily insert the tip of one’s little finger, and it had two little wings” (“en sortit une beste noire, grosse comme un petit cabot, dans la gueule duquell on aurait bien mis le bout du petit doigt et avait deulx petites ailes.”)
Jean Le Feyvre, of the Mielles,[154] witnesseth that one morning he found Cécile, wife of Omont, near the Chapelle de l’Epine, where she was searching, he could not tell for what, and where she remained for a long while without his being able to perceive that she found anything, and she did not perceive that he was watching her; and he having asked her shortly afterwards whether it was she that he had observed at such an hour near the chapel, she denied it, and that afterwards he asked her again whether it was she who was in that neighbourhood, and she replied in the affirmative, and then he started fine rumours, (ung beau bruit) saying that she was dancing on the thorn which grows in the aforesaid neighbourhood.
29th May, 1613. Thomasse, wife of Collas Troussey, deposes that one night, her husband being on guard at the Castle, she was awakened by a frightful noise, like cats squalling, and she dared not cry out on account of Olivier Omont, who was sleeping in the same corridor as herself, though the miauling of the cats still continued. When her husband was returned from his patrol, she dared ask Omont if he had not heard the cats, to which he replied Yes, but there was nothing for her to be afraid of, that they would do her no harm. That another night, her husband being also there, she had heard Omont call “Cats! cats!” and on asking him if he had cats in his wallet (en son bisac,) he replied “No,” and that the noise seemed beneath where she lay, but that he was afraid that they would eat the fish that was on the table.
30th June, 1613. An enquiry was held on Laurence L’Eustace, wife of Thomas Le Comte, suspected of being a witch.
Jean Hallouvris witnesses that for four years he has driven his cart. As the wheels passed close to Laurence she dropped several strings and twists of rushes (quelques colliers et nattes de pavie)[155] that she was carrying, at which she was very angry. Two days afterwards, one of his bullocks set off running as if it were mad, and then fell down stone dead, and the other bullock died the next day.
Pierre Machon deposes that he has heard Laurence swear “By God’s ten fingers” (“Par les dix doigts de Dieu”), and with oaths and blasphemies call devils to her assistance.
Christine, wife of Pierre Jehan, says that her first husband, Collas Henry, having had a quarrel with Laurence Le Comte, one of their children, aged two years, was taken with an illness which lasted for twelve months. When the attack first came on, he jumped high into the air, that, before being taken ill he walked very well, but that afterwards, all that year he crawled on his hands and knees. That, having had a quarrel with the said Laurence, and having put some curds to cool, (des caillebottes à refroidir), she found them the next day just like bits of rag (que de la mêque), and that on the following Monday the child was seized with terror, and cried out that someone was pulling his nose. That, as soon as she went to Laurence’s house, the child got better, but, on her return, fell ill again, and finally died.
17th of May, 1617, began the trial of Collette du Mont, widow of Jean Becquet, Marie, her daughter, wife of Pierre Massy, and Isebel Becquet, wife of Jean Le Moygne.
James Gallienne witnesses that one day, having quarrelled with Jean Le Moigne, husband of the aforesaid Isebell, the said Le Moigne
Thomas Sohier said that Jean Jehan having summoned him to come and make his will, he complained that the said Isebell was killing him for having refused to make a jacket for her son. That some little time afterwards James Gallienne, having a sick daughter, caused her bed to be unripped, out of which came a sort of animal like a rat (une manière de bête comme un rat), which hid itself in some wood and was hunted for throughout the house; that on the following day, having met the said Isebell, he noticed her face all torn (déchiré sic). On asking her the cause she said it was from “du mal d’Espagne,” (cantharides, the[323] Spanish fly used for making blisters); that on that he asked James Gallienne if he had not beaten her, who replied in the negative; that, being the other day at the house of the said Gallienne, giving evidence to this, his wife fell down as if dead, and on returning to consciousness, said that she was bewitched.
6th June, 1617. Marie, wife of James Gallienne … deposed … Item; that for nearly ten years her eldest daughter Rachel had been bewitched.
4th of July, 1617, these three women, Collette Dumont, widow of Jean Becquet, Marie, her daughter, wife of Pierre Massy, and Isebell Becquet, wife of Jean le Moigne, were convicted by the Royal Court of Guernsey of having practised the damnable art of sorcery, and of having thereby caused the death of many persons, destroyed and injured much cattle, and done many other evil deeds. They were condemned to be tied to a stake, strangled, and burnt until their bodies were totally consumed; and their ashes to be scattered abroad. The sentence added that, previous to execution, they were to be put to the torture[159] in order to force them to declare the names of their accomplices.
Collette Dumont names in her confession: wives Calais and Hardy (implicated), she remembers that she threw some over Mr. Dolbel, the minister of the parish, and by this means was the cause of his death. With the same powder she bewitched the wife of Jean Manguès, but denies that her death was caused by it. She says that she touched the side, and threw some of this powder on the wife,[163] since deceased, of Mr. Perchard, who succeeded Mr. Dolbel as minister of the parish, thereby causing her death and that of her unborn babe. She says that on the refusal of Collas Tostevin’s wife to give her some milk, she caused her cow to run dry by throwing some of the powder[329] over it.
Marie Massy
Isebell Becquet incited her to avenge herself on her sister-in-law, La Girarde, with whom she had quarrelled.
- Collette Salmon, wife of Collas Du Port, caused the loss of a boat and the death of the whole crew, merely because one of them asked her more than she thought was right for three miserable dog-fish.
- Marie Mouton, was banished from the island for her evil doings (see banished)
- [149] Editor’s Note.—See in “Hamlet,” where the priest refuses Christian burial to Ophelia as a suicide, and commands:—“Shards, flints, and pebbles should be thrown upon her.” It has been conjectured that these heaps of stones were placed upon graves, more especially of criminals and suicides, to keep the spirit in the earth, and prevent the ghost from walking. Hence the modern gravestone.
- [151] Editor’s Note.—The old name for the cross roads at St. Martin’s, near where the village Post Office now stands.
- [152] This is a hill at Torteval, on which, says Mr. Métivier, our ancestors used to light signal fires near the “Hougue Hérault,” where the northern King Herolt made his signals. He says the name is derived from the Breton An Tat, “the old Father,” a name for the God of the Gauls; in Swedish it is Anda, the spirit, or Onda, the evil one. See Notes in Rimes Guernesiaises.
- [153] These were the mounds of earth where they practised with the cross-bow before the introduction of muskets. The “Buttes” still exist in some parishes.
- [154] Mielles, in Normandy, Brittany, and the Channel Islands, means the “waste lands on the sea-shore.” In the Vale parish alone there were two estates called “Les Mielles.” See Métivier’s Dictionary, Mielles.
- [155]Editor’s Note.—Pavie used to be grown in ponds arranged for the purpose, and was used for making pack-saddles, horse-collars, mats, etc. It is a reed.—From John de Garis, Esq.
- [159] Editor’s Note.—The manner in which torture was administered in Guernsey is thus described by Warburton, herald and antiquary, temp. Charles II., in his Treatise on the History, Laws and Customs of the Island of Guernsey, 1682, page 126. “By the law approved (Terrien, Lib. XII, Cap. 37), torture is to be used, though not upon slight presumption, yet where the presumptive proof is strong, and much more when the proof is positive, and there wants only the confession of the party accused. Yet this practice of torturing does not appear to have been used in the Island for some ages, except in the case of witches, when it was too frequently applied, near a century since. The custom then was, when any person was supposed guilty of sorcery or witchcraft, they carried them to a place in the town called La Tour Beauregard, and there, tying their hands behind them by the two thumbs, drew them to a certain height, with an engine made for that purpose, by which means sometimes their shoulders were turned round, and sometimes their thumbs torn off; but this fancy of witches has for some years been laid aside.”
Resources
Guernsey Folk Lore, by Edgar MacCulloch - A collection of popular superstitions, legendary tales, peculiar customs, proverbs, weather sayings, etc., of the people of that island. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52834/52834-h/52834-h.htm