de Rais, and ask ourselves what we really know about 
him as opposed to what we have heard about him. 
We know that he was a gentleman of good 
family, because otherwise he could not have held 
the offices which he did hold.  We know that he was 
a brave soldier, and a comrade of Joan of Arc.  We 
know that he had a passion for science, for the basis 
of his reputation was that he frequented the society 
of learned men.  We know finally that he was accused 
of the same crimes as Joan of Arc by the same people 
who accused her, and that he was condemned by 
them to the same penalty. 
I do not think that I have left out any verifiable 
fact.  I think that all the rest amounts to speculation. 
The real problem of Gilles de Rais amounts, accord-
ingly, to this.  Here we have a person who, in almost 
every respect, was the male equivalent of Joan of 
Arc.  Both of them have gone down in history.  But 
history is somewhat curious.  I am still inclined to 
think that “ there aint no sich animile.”  In the time 
of Shakespeare, Joan of Arc was accepted in England 
as a symbol for everything vile.  He makes her out 
not only as a sorceress, but a charlatan and hypocrite ; 
and on top of that a coward, a liar, and a common 
slut.  I suspect that they began to whitewash her 
when they decided that she was a virgin, that is a 
sexually deranged, or at least incomplete, animal, 
but the idea has always got people going, as any 
student of religion knows.  Anyway, her stock went 
up to the point of canonization.  Gilles de Rais, on 
the other hand, is equally a household word for 
monstrous vices and crimes.  So much so, that he 
is even confused with the fabulous figure of Blue-