“The King of
Canadaes Son, by meanes of the intercourse of traffique between the French and
that Savage Nation, having, at the suite of these holy compassers of Sea and
Land, beene sent by his Father into France, and there entertained at their
Colledge in Paris, with the quintessence of Jesuiticall discipline, for the space
of two yeares, was at length presented a learned Catechumenist in the
Cathedrall Church of our Lady to be baptized; where in the presence of a
Congregation, as great as the Church was capable of, the King himself was his
Godfather, and gave him his owne name [the king was Louis III], but when
the sacrament was administered, such a cracke was heard from a secret Scaffold
provided for the nonce, that the whole multitude was much astonished, fearing
least the Church would have fallen on their heads, wherof the holy fathers
being well apayed [gratified] to see their plot had taken effect, one of
them catching his cue, and beckning with the finger for audience, began to tell
them, that they had no cause to feare at all, but rather to rejoice, and
glorifie God, who had honoured the baptisme of this Savage Prince with a
miracle, in token of the conversion of that whole Nation, wherof himselfe was
now the first fruits: But while he was yet speaking, the paper wherein the
miracle was wrought came smoking downe among the company, and brought such a
stinke of Gunpowder with it, that every one with his nose in his hand began to
leave the place, and get him away, some smiling, others blushing, and last of
all the new Christian also, leaving his religion where he had found his
baptisme. For being not long after brought into England with the French ships,
taken by some of our merchants in their Canada voyage, he himselfe related the
story, protesting it to be true, with many more of the like nature, for which,
he said, he did much abominate the Romish religion, and thereupon became
conformable to the Church of England.”
If this incident
occurred, the ‘King of Canada’s son’ must have been a Huron Indian whose status
back in his own country had been inflated for the sake of some pious
propaganda. The Huron tribes were at this time willing to accept Jesuit
missions; these were very much ‘embedded’ in nature, as the Jesuit missionaries
tried first to understand the people they were converting by living with them,
and to some extent adopting their ways. But ‘Canada’ of course did not exist as
a nation, the Iroquois were unappeasable in their war against the Huron, nor
could the European settlers help them. This article from the Catholic
Encyclopedia is a long record of disaster:
Anyway, the relation has it that at the formal baptism in
Notre Dame of this purported Prince, a charge of gunpowder had been set
somewhere high in the building, so fused that it exploded noisily during the
administration of the sacrament. Consternation followed this ‘miracle’, as well
it might. Whether the explosion was meant to signify the devil (say, ‘Okee’)
departing the scene, or a clap of divine thunder by way of heavenly approval
isn’t clear. But the artificers had not thought it all the way through: down
drifted the smoking remnants of their firework, and the fraud became apparent
even as one of the devoutly inspired contrivers was trying to capitalize upon
it.
I half incline to accept the story as genuine, even though
the context is solid English anti-catholicism. Baptisms were moments of
ideological triumph. The implacable Iroquois themselves recognized as much, in
their sadistic use of scalding baptisms in killing missionary priests
But the notion that the ‘prince’ of the Huron witnessed such
a fraud perpetrated by Catholic Christians, but then was subsequently willing to
join the Church of England is just too incredible.
My source for this dubious anecdote is, as I say, not a
neutral one. It is thrown in at the end of this pamphlet: A relation of the deuill Balams departure out of the body of the
Mother-Prioresse of the Ursuline nuns of Loudun Her fearefull motions and contorsions
during the exorcisme …Or the first part of the play acted at Loudun by two
divels, a frier, and a nun. Faithfully translated out of the French copie, with
some observations for the better illustration of the pageant (1636).
The pamphlet consists of, first, a translation from a French
source of a Catholic account of this exorcism of Balam from the famous Jean des
Anges, then the English author’s own debunking commentary. Finally, the
anonymous author presents the anecdote I have transcribed as a comic ‘jig’ or
afterpiece to his main drama. Whoever the author was, he was strongly
influenced by Samuel Harsnett’s attacks on the ‘devil theatre’ of earlier Catholic
exorcists (this can be seen in the theatrical figure already developed in the
title).
The pamphlet itself is an indication that there was some
perturbation about the effect of the ‘miracles’ going off in Loudon. Walter
Montagu had been present at this exorcism, and converted, the dramatist Thomas
Killigrew was there, and put his name down among those who testified to the
inexplicable nature of what they had seen. Killigrew’s own description for a
correspondent has been found and published. Put simply, Jean des Anges was
undergoing the slow process of exorcism by the Jesuit Father Surin, and others.
She had multiple devils in her, so the departure of Balam was just a part of
the process. As this pamphleteer sourly remarks, the timing of this exorcism fell
very conveniently for the English gentlemen who had traveled to Loudon to be
‘edified’.
One reads in Greenblatt about the connections Harsnett saw
between these devout actions and the ‘action’ of the theatre. This pamphlet
really brings it home just what levels of impersonation were reached. The
devils possessing Jean des Anges are said quite simply to appear. Then you realize
the obvious: that they are ‘appearing’ by taking over the body and face of the
prioress. Surin interprets the appearance of the different possessing devils as
they show in her facial expressions that signify their manifestations: “he
appeared againe in the same shape of Iscaran … as he was in the midst of his
action, he suddenly stopped, and the forme of Balam appeared in his
countenance, but with an aspect sad and affrighted, yet but smiling withal, by
which marke he was knowne. Then the Father told the behoulders that it was
Balam, which the devil also averred, and as his face was noted to wax very pale
and discoloured, the said Father said unto him: thy paleness argues thee guilty.”
Jean des Anges can, with the collaboration of Father Surin, manifest
individually distinct devils. In case we don’t get it, the pamphleteer
explains: “for the devil are no where else to be seene or heard, but in the
actions of the maid, and the tongue of the priest”.
The devil Balam, who seems to have been a very amenable sort
of devil, whose arrival is signaled by Jean assuming rueful smiles, had previously
said that he would soon depart, but proposed to leave a token of his departure:
his name would appear on the Prioress’ arm. He remarks - with some poignancy
for a devil - that by this means his name, at least, will finally get into
heaven. (Balam also willingly testifies that, unlike the human observers, he
can see the real presence in the sacrament.) Surin had objected to having his
holy demoniac polluted in this way, and dictated that, instead, the name of St
Joseph should appear. Balam had willingly divulged that St Joseph was his ‘chief
enemy’ in heaven.
At the climax of this particular exorcism, Jean des Anges
manifested the devil within her gnawing at her left hand, and then the name of
‘Joseph’ appeared on her right arm ‘in bloody characters’, before the
witnesses.
Killigrew, a man of the theatre, had no idea of how it was
done; Walter Montagu simply converted. The pamphleteer can’t really produce any
clear explanation either, so (reasonably enough) he just pours scorn by way of
refutation. His most rational suggestion is “if you please to write with the
juice of a Limon upon a peece of paper, and afterwards hold it to the fire” you
can reproduce the type of trick. But even if you can write in lemon juice on
your arm, there was no obvious source of heat for Jean des Anges to hold her
arm up to, to bring out the letters.
But the pamphleteer then says something fascinating, which I
cannot explain, and am sure that I have seen no further references to: “or
learne how the characters are made upon the armes of many that have beene at Hierusalem.”
What could that mean? He makes it sound as if Jerusalem
pilgrims could return with a heat sensitive tattoo. Could you rub vigorously on
your arm, and make a mysterious authentication of your pilgrimage appear? And was
it ‘I ♥ Jerusalem’?
My illustration is a Canadian brave, on the title page of A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, (1698).
No comments:
Post a Comment