An Armenian woman had inspired a violent passion in a young Turkish gentleman, but her prudence was long an obstacle to her lover's desires.At last he went beyond all bounds, and threatened to kill both her and her husband if she refused to gratify him.Frightened by this threat, which she knew too well he would carry out, she feigned consent, and gave the Turk a rendezvous at her house at an hour when she said her husband would be absent; but by arrangement the husband arrived, and although the Turk was armed with a sabre and a pair of pistols, it so befell that they were fortunate enough to kill their enemy, whom they buried under their dwelling unknown to all the world.But some days after the event they went to confess to a priest of their nation, and revealed every detail of the tragic story.This unworthy minister of the Lord supposed that in a Mahommedan country, where the laws of the priesthood and the functions of a confessor are either unknown or disapproved, no examination would be made into the source of his information, and that his evidence would have the same weight as any other accuser's.
So he resolved to make a profit and gratify his own avarice.Several times he visited the husband and wife, always borrowing considerable sums, and threatening to reveal their crime if they refused him.The first few times the poor creatures gave in to his exactions; but the moment came at last when, robbed of all their fortune, they were obliged to refuse the sum he demanded.Faithful to his threat, the priest, with a view to more reward, at once denounced them to the dead man's father.He, who had adored his son, went to the vizier, told him he had identified the murderers through their confessor, and asked for justice.But this denunciation had by no means the desired effect.The vizier, on the contrary, felt deep pity for the wretched Armenians, and indignation against the priest who had betrayed them.
He put the accuser into a room which adjoined the court, and sent for the Armenian bishop to ask what confession really was, and what punishment was deserved by a priest who betrayed it, and what was the fate of those whose crimes were made known in this fashion.The bishop replied that the secrets of confession are inviolable, that Christians burn the priest who reveals them, and absolve those whom he accuses, because the avowal made by the guilty to the priest is proscribed by the Christian religion, on pain of eternal damnation.
The vizier, satisfied with the answer, took the bishop into another room, and summoned the accused to declare all the circumstances: the poor wretches, half dead, fell at the vizier's feet.The woman spoke, explaining that the necessity of defending life and honour had driven them to take up arms to kill their enemy.She added that God alone had witnessed their crime, and it would still be unknown had not the law of the same God compelled them to confide it to the ear of one of His ministers for their forgiveness.Now the priest's insatiable avarice had ruined them first and then denounced them.
The vizier made them go into a third room, and ordered the treacherous priest to be confronted with the bishop, making him again rehearse the penalties incurred by those who betray confessions.
Then, applying this to the guilty priest, he condemned him to be burnt alive in a public place;--in anticipation, said he, of burning in hell, where he would assuredly receive the punishment of his infidelity and crimes.The sentence was executed without delay.
In spite of the effect which the advocate intended to produce by these three cases, either the judges rejected them, or perhaps they thought the other evidence without the confession was enough, and it was soon clear to everyone, by the way the trial went forward, that the marquise would be condemned.Indeed, before sentence was pronounced, on the morning of July 16th, 1676, she saw M.Pirot, doctor of the Sorbonne, come into her prison, sent by the chief president.This worthy magistrate, foreseeing the issue, and feeling that one so guilty should not be left till the last moment, had sent the good priest.The latter, although he had objected that the Conciergerie had its own two chaplains, and added that he was too feeble to undertake such a task, being unable even to see another man bled without feeling ill, accepted the painful mission, the president having so strongly urged it, on the ground that in this case he needed a man who could be entirely trusted.The president, in fact, declared that, accustomed as he was to dealing with criminals, the strength of the marquise amazed him.The day before he summoned M.
Pirot, he had worked at the trial from morning to night, and for thirteen hours the accused had been confronted with Briancourt, one of the chief witnesses against her.On that very ,day, there had been five hours more, and she had borne it all, showing as much respect towards her judges as haughtiness towards the witness, reproaching him as a miserable valet, given to drink, and protesting that as he had been dismissed for his misdemeanours, his testimony against her ought to go for nothing.So the chief president felt no hope of breaking her inflexible spirit, except by the agency of a minister of religion; for it was not enough to put her to death, the poisons must perish with her, or else society would gain nothing.
The doctor Pirot came to the marquise with a letter from her sister, who, as we know, was a nun bearing the name of Sister Marie at the convent Saint-Jacques.Her letter exhorted the marquise, in the most touching and affectionate terms, to place her confidence in the good priest, and look upon him not only as a helper but as a friend.
