37 pages • 1 hour read
Eric JagerThe Last Duel: A True Story of Crime, Scandal, and Trial by Combat in Medieval France
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2004A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 1, Chapters 5-6Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 1, Chapter 5 Summary and Analysis: “The Challenge”
The charge of rape against Le Gris was brought before Count Pierre. However, for some reason Jager admits to not knowing from the available sources, Marguerite and Carrouges did not show up at Pierre’s court. While Count Pierre still ordered an investigation and had Louvel interrogated, he declared Le Gris and Louvel innocent, stating that Marguerite must have “’dreamt’” the rape (79). Since Carrouges had the legal right to seek an appeal from Count Pierre’s overlord, who would be the king, Count Pierre sent letters to the king first.
Early in 1386, Carrouges left for Paris to meet King Charles VI personally. He had decided to challenge Le Gris to a judicial duel or a trial by combat. As Jager explains, the judicial duel was based on the idea that God would favor the innocent party and punish the guilty. It had once been widely spread among all classes of medieval society, and even women were allowed to fight. However, these duels became rare, as they were condemned by both popes (who saw them as blasphemously tempting God) and monarchs (who viewed such duels as undermining their own growing control over the law and the nobility) (82). Since 1258, the use of the judicial duel was increasingly restricted under French law by various royal decrees. In Carrouges’s time, for a judicial duel to be permitted, the circumstances had to fall under four criteria:
- The crime being judged had to be a capital offense (treason, rape, or murder)
- A crime had to be determined to have occurred at all
- The duel had to be the last legal resort
- There had to be a strong case for suspecting the accused
Even if the judicial duel was allowed, it was a dangerous move. The duel would be to the death, and if he lost Carrouges would die and his family’s reputation would be ruined. Marguerite would have to swear an oath that her charge of rape against Le Gris was true. If Carrouges lost, that would mean she swore a false oath, and the penalty for lying about a rape charge for a woman was death. However, “Jean de Carrouges may have felt by this point that only a duel to the death would enable him to avenge the terrible crime against his wife, to prove his charges against Jacques Le Gris, and to vindicate the couple’s honor” (83).
Jager explains that when Carrouges arrived in Paris, he would have found the largest city in Europe at the time along with the University of Paris, Europe’s foremost university. The city “was a noisy, crowded, smelly, dangerous place” (84). There, Carrouges recruited a lawyer, Jean de Bethisy. Jager speculates that Bethisy would have advised Carrouges on the procedure that was necessary to request a judicial duel, including two key stages: The appeal, where the plaintiff (appelant) accused the defendant (défendeur) of the crime in the presence of the king—it was not necessary that the defendant be present—and the formal challenge, where the plaintiff formally accused the defendant in their presence in front of the Parlement of Paris and a number of nobles who swore oaths to make sure the duel took place.
Jager emphasizes that the entire procedure required elaborate rituals and oaths, prescribed by law. There was even a “formulaire—an elaborate protocol”—that listed and described all the necessary oaths and ceremonies required for the judicial duel (88). This included Carrouges bowing before the king and raising his sword as part of the appeal. Also, before the Parlement of Paris at the government building called the Palais de Justice, Le Gris and Carrouges faced each other with their own retinues and then turned their backs on each other and left. Medieval society had clear and specific law codes, lawyers, and the ability to seek appeals. However, these laws were expressed through ritual and ceremony and imposed using oaths.
As the rituals of the appeal and the challenge unfolded, Le Gris enlisted his own lawyer, Jean Le Coq. Le Coq’s own journal survives as a major source for these events, which Jager uses. In this journal, Le Coq writes that he advised Le Gris to take advantage of the fact he was a low-ranking member of the clergy and instead have the case go to a church court, which would not allow a judicial duel. Jager speculates that Le Gris refused to follow this advice possibly “because his vanity would not permit him to be thought a coward, especially now that the quarrel had been heard by the king in the royal court and was becoming known throughout France” (95).
Also, word of Carrouges’s demand for a judicial duel spread across France and beyond. It became a famous issue that was discussed and debated, even dividing the royal court. Once the challenge was complete, it was still left to the Parlement of Paris to decide if the judicial duel should take place.
Part 1, Chapter 6 Summary and Analysis: “The Inquiry”
At the Palais de Justice, the Parlement of Paris held a formal trial to ensure a crime had been committed that could justify a judicial duel. Marguerite, Le Gris, and Carrouges all testified. Jager notes that transcripts of the testimonies do not survive, but they were summarized in court records (107).
Carrouges’s testimony drew attention to his former friendship with Le Gris. The testimony claimed Marguerite kissed Le Gris as a gesture of friendship on Carrouges’s encouragement and claimed that after the kiss Le Gris became obsessed with Marguerite. Carrouges accused Le Gris of not only rape but also lying, adultery, and incest (since in medieval eyes Le Gris was related to Marguerite because he was godfather to Carrouges’s deceased son), ultimately arguing the case met “all the necessary conditions” (108) for a judicial duel.
Le Gris testified next. His testimony noted that he was from a family that had served Count Pierre and the king of France loyally and also stressed that he and Carrouges were once friends. He argued Carrouges “became progressively more hostile toward him and Count Pierre” (109) and irrationally resented him. He painted Carrouges as a violent man who abused his first wife Jeanne and Marguerite and physically assaulted a maidservant for not being present when Marguerite was left home alone. The testimony also called Marguerite’s story into doubt, claiming that she had only met Le Gris twice and could have mistaken his identity and arguing that Carrouges threatened Marguerite into making the accusation. Le Gris also argued that the distance was too far to travel for him to have been able to commit the crime, and he provided an alibi that eyewitnesses could attest that he was at Count Pierre’s court.
Jager argues that it would have still been possible for Le Gris to have made the journey necessary to have left Count Pierre’s castle at Argentan and committed the crime.
Carrouges was then given an opportunity to respond to Le Gris’s testimony. In this speech, he noted that he was bringing these charges against Le Gris at great risk to his life and honor, argued he never abused Marguerite, rebutted Le Gris’s claim that the distance was too great, and asserted that Marguerite’s own testimony was factual, consistent, and without flaws, noting that she too was putting her honor at stake.
Jager then notes that neither Le Gris nor Carrouges brought up Marguerite’s pregnancy. In the Middle Ages, it was erroneously believed that a child could not be conceived in a rape. This belief may have led people to believe that Marguerite was guilty of adultery. However, Le Gris likely felt mentioning this in his testimony would have been “too risky” (118).
As the inquiry continued some mysterious letters arrived, possibly sent by Count Pierre to discredit Marguerite as a witness. However, the content of these letters is unknown. Also, Louvel was made to testify under torture, a routine practice at the time. Meanwhile, Jean Beloteau, one of the eyewitnesses for Le Gris’s alibi, was also arrested under suspicion of abduction or rape. Jager argues this at least suggests “Jacques Le Gris traveled in some rather rough company” (121).
As proceedings dragged on, King Charles VI left Paris to help lead an invasion of England. Then, after over two months of the inquiry, the Parlement of Paris had decided to allow the judicial duel. It was the first time since 1354 a judicial duel had been permitted in a rape case (125).
In this chapter, Jager draws attention to what the sources can reveal as well as what their limitations are. Although noting that the records of the trial testimonies only exist in summary (107), he still teases out significant details, such as the fact neither Le Gris nor Carrouges mentioned Marguerite’s pregnancy. Further, he discusses the journal of Le Coq, Le Gris’s lawyer. It provides further insights into Le Gris’s defense and the detail that Le Gris “once asked him ‘whether I had doubts concerning him, because he saw me thinking’” (122). Even with relatively few sources, Jager has enough details to reconstruct a detailed narrative.
Another recurring theme in this chapter is Marguerite. Her testimony was not recorded, and as a woman she had no right to bring forth charges herself. Nonetheless, Jager notes that she had testified before the king and the Parlement of Paris despite being six months pregnant. Also, by becoming involved in seeking charges against Le Gris, Marguerite made herself vulnerable to being executed by being burned alive for swearing a false oath about rape should Carrouges lose. Marguerite’s story is one of a woman who was victimized in a brutal crime and who was restrained and threatened by the laws and customs of medieval France, but she was an active participant in the legal case against Le Gris.
