Parte ff. 1–3 - An anecdote of the 3rd Duke of Richelieu, in the hand of Thomas Gray

Docketed ‘Anecdote of the Duke de Richlieu.’

—————

Transcript

On the 18th of June 1727, the day, on w[hi]ch that solemn festival of the Fête-Dieu is kept, the Duke de Richelieu did not wait on the Emperour, as he ought to have done, under pretence of a fever. it was soon perceived, that he did not care to come out of his own house & appear at court, and the fault, he had committed, begun to be talk’d of publickly. the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Collonitz, received an information against one John de Navarro & Montoya, a Spanish Monk of the Order of S. Francis, for being busy about the translation of a Latin Book, w[hi]ch was full of Witchcraft, & secrets for making up & giving poisons. a young Fellow, who had been employ’d by the Monk in copying the book, was the Person, who betray’d & inform’d against him. the Monk was immediately arrested by the Archbishop: he was well known at Vienna, where he led a most scandalous & licentious life. he had formerly been Chaplain to a Regiment. he was no sooner imprison’d, but the Duke de Richelieu began to make a great stir about him, to claim him & demand his liberty of the Archbishop, declaring that he was one of his retinue. The Archbp: was desirous of complying with this request of the Ambassador, & would have done so, had not one of the Priests of his Consistory hinder’d him by representing, that in a case relative to religion the protection & immunity of the Ambassadour ceased, one being of no consequence, the other not existing at all, in such cases. the Monk could not deny his translating the book, & moreover declared, he was doing it for Richelieu, who not understanding Latin could not do it himself. the Duke on his side confess’d this to be true, but at the same time denied a report, by w[hi]ch he was said to have given 2000 Florins for the book to an Armenian Merchant call’d Assi: for he maintain’d that a Friend had made him a present of it. be this as it will, the book was a Folio written in barbarous Latin & in an Arabic character. the Emperour kept the book saying it should be burnt, when the contents of it had been throughly examined. whether this sentence was ever executed, is uncertain. at the time the Monk was arrested for only translating the book, the shocking story & all the following circumstances were discover’d.

Near the Danube in that suburb, w[hi]ch is call’d Leopoldstat there is a Villa belonging to Count Zchernini, in w[hi]ch his Father-in-Law Philip Eugene de Merode, Marquess of Westerloo, Count de Montfort, Dolen, & Battenburg lived, & tho’ the behaviour of this Nobleman had been a continued series of extravagance & impiety yet his illustrious birth and the ancient attachment of his family to the House of Austria, had raised him to the highest honours. he was a Knight of ye Golden Fleece, Colonel of a Regiment, Marechal de la Cour, & Captain of the Guards, that are call’d Drabans, in this garden of Count Zchernini there is a grove, in w[hi]ch upon the Holy Thursday of the [year] 1727 was performed a Sacrifice to the Moon attended with all the ceremonies of the ancient Pagans. the Catholicks, or I should rather call them the Idolaters, who offer’d the sacrifice according to the rules prescribed in the above-mention’d book found this garden was the properest place they could pitch upon for the execution of their design, because the book directed, that this ceremony should be performd in a grove near a river flowing towards the East. as the sacrifice was performed in the day-time, & as on the altar, w[hi]ch they had raised, a violent fire, destined for the burning of the victim, was blazing, a neighbouring Gardiner seeing the flames ran to the Marquess de Westerloo’s to warn the People of a fire near the house. one of the Servants bid him not be alarmed, for that the fire was made on purpose. the Gardiner retired, but urged by his curiosity to see what was going forward in the grove, he with too† of his Labourers coming near to the pales, w[hi]ch surrounded it, saw the sacrifice thro’ the crevices. they thought the ceremonies & the dress of those, who officiated, very strange, but did not till two months after declare, what they had been witnesses of. they made their depositions before Count de Lamberg, a Minister of Justice & an authoritative Judge in such a case as this. he immediately arrested two of the Marquess Westerloo’s Servants. they declared that neither of them had assisted at the ceremony, but that one had piled the wood upon the altar, & that the other was to guard the gate of the garden during the sacrifice. these two Servants, being question’d concerning the Persons engaged in the offering, they impeach’d them without forgetting, that the Monk Montoya was one. the Count de Lamberg having confronted the Monk with these Witnesses, he confess’d the crime & all its circumstances. as soon as the Marquess de Westerloo heard of the imprisonment of his Servants, he went to Count de Lamberg & the Marquess de Rialp, then Secretary of State. there so far was he from denying the fact, that he confess’d it with the most open & scandalous obstinacy. he told them, one of the ends he proposed to obtain by this sacrifice was the restoration of his health; that it had had its desired effect, & that he certainly was relieved of a violent pain in his breast, w[hi]ch had tormented him before. he also declared, that the French Ambassador, who was the original proposer of the sacrifice, was much better for it, & that he had undertaken it principally to obtain the general esteem of Mankind. he said at last, that as to himself he should not have consented to it but for the repeated sollicitations of the Embassador, who founded his hopes chiefly on the grove being situated near the Danube, w[hi]ch flows towards the East. all the following circumstances are as true as those already mention’d, & are affirmed in the depositions of the Persons, who saw them. the Victim was a black calf, w[hi]ch the French Ambassr: carried in his coach to the Marqss: of Westerloo’s. five Persons were concern’d in this act of idolatry, performing all the rites of the ancient Pagans, habited in their dress, & crown’d with their mitres, using all their prostrations & genuflexions, observing the quality & quantity of fire necessary to consume the victim, burning perfumes of different sorts, leading the victim in pomp & procession to the altar & repeating several obscene prayers address’d to the Moon, imploring her protection and the communication of her influence to the different metals, w[hi]ch they had put into the fire, & of w[hi]ch they expected to make a Talisman. the virtue of the Talisman was to procure for the Sacrificers the several blessings of perfect health, general esteem, and great riches[.] it appeared that the Duke de Richelieu officiated as High-Priest, as he cut off the head of the victim with his own hands. according to the precepts of the book the whole sacrifice was to be performed in seventeen minutes, but as the fire did not consume the calf under three hours the Duke was highly concerned, & much afraid, least the Talisman should not answer. the Mss: of Westerloo, & the Monk Montoya, who both had acted as Sacrificators, were dress’d like the Duke de Richelieu in the habit of the ancient Pagans. the subaltern Ministers were Assi, the Armenian, & a Spanish Lieutenant-Colonel named Don Diego de Oviedo, who being a Professor of Astrology, was of great service in observing when the Moon came to that point of the heavens, w[hi]ch according to the doctrine of the book was proper. as the Spaniard was desired by the Sacrificers to attend on the ceremony he was looked upon as the least guilty, & consider’d as one, who had committed the crime out of excessive complaisance to the others.

When the Monk’s confession was drawn up & confirm’d by so many Witnesses, a doubt arose about the punishment to be inflicted on him. the Archbishop at least thought proper to put him into the hands of the Head of the Franciscan Convent, & it was said he was confined in a close dungeon & allow’d nothing but bread & water. he was afterwards to be sent into Spain, but it is quite uncertain, whether he was or not. the Emperour for certain reasons, w[hi]ch I shall mention by & by, did not make much bustle about the punishment of the Marqss: of Westerloo, however he sent him word no longer to act as Captain of the Guards: the Marquess obeyd† & resign’d his commission. as for the poor Armenian, who sold the book, it is certain, that he died at the French Ambassador’s a few days after the imprisonment of the Monk. the People, who had highly blamed & condemn’d that Minister, were persuaded, that he had poison’d the Armenian to prevent the discovery of the mystery, as he did not know the Monk had confess’d all in prison. this suspicion was not founded on absolute proof but on very reasonable conjectures: this is however certain, that the Duke invited the Armenian to sup with his Servants, that after supper he complain’d of a sore throat, and died the next day. but as there was no opportunity of opening his body the suspicion of the people could not be confirmed. the Colonel Oviedo had time to conceal himself at the Ambassadour’s, & at length left Vienna for ever. the Duke of Richelieu, under pretence of a fever either real or feign’d, begun to omit attending the festivals celebrated in the Aulic Chappel, where however Nuncio Monsignr: Grimaldi acquainted the Ambassador, that he must not appear at Chappel, because he had been excommunicated on account of his idolatry. the Ambr: perceiving he should be ruin’d for ever, if he was not permitted to appear there, made repeated sollicitations to the Nuncio to obtain absolution for his crime. this Prelate refer’d it to Father Tenneman, the Emperour’s Confessor, & this Jesuit assured the Emperour, that the Duke had made an ample confession of his heinous crime, & declared his sincere repentance, and then he absolved him. he also absolved Monsr: de Westerloo. Mr: Grimaldi having wrote upon this subject to the Nuncio at Paris & several foreign Ministers following his example, they all endeavour’d at the Duke’s earnest sollicitation to palliate his crime. the Nuncio was much blamed for so carefully hushing up such a heinous & criminal action. a Friend of the Nuncio hearing these imputations endeavour’d to justify him by saying, that Mr: Grimaldi could not do otherwise, as the Duke had from the first mention’d it to him, as his Confessor. whether this was true, we know not, but it is certain, that as soon as the affair begun to be rumour’d, the Ambassr: made political confession of it to Count Zinzendorff, Great Chancellor of the Imperial Court, & desired him to be favourable to him, & intercede for him with the rest of the Ministry. the Ministry, being well paid, & content with the Duke in his political capacity, connived at the dissimulation of his crime. however they wrote to Baron Fonseca, the Imperial Minister at Paris, to inform him of every fact, that he might be able to answer the French Minister, who probably might question him about it.

It certainly was right, and every body thought so, that the Emperour should punish M: de Westerloo by banishment[,] the loss of the golden Fleece, & his places at court. it is plain, that by depriving him of his commission of the Guards he was desirous of removing him from his Person. therefore if he did not punish him more openly, it was because he waited to see what punishment would be inflicted by the King of France on the D: of Richelieu. if the King in detestation of his idolatry had punish’d the Duke, the Emperour had resolved severely also to punish Westerloo: but as his most Christian Majesty affected to be ignorant of, or at least to doubt of his Minister’s crime the Empr: thro’ policy or indulgence was equally moderate to ye Marquess: but at bottom he never after esteem’d either of them, having conceived all the indignation against them, w[hi]ch the horror of their crime deserved.

Such is the faithful account of this singular event, as it was contain’d in a letter of Count Tarouca [Footnote: ‘He was Minister from the Court of Portugal, then at Vienna.’] no ways alter’d from the original Portuguese, whence I translated it, but in representing it as a thing past, whereas he writes of it, as a transaction happening at the time.

The Duke being recall’d to Paris, he took leave of their Impl: Majesties at the Favorita, Sept: 6. 1727. the Empr: presented him with his picture, set in diamonds of great value.

[Docketed in an unidentified hand:] Anecdote of the Duke de Richlieu†.

[Added below by a third hand:] 15–8–

—————

† Sic.