WEEK 8: Loudun Possession (How a Possession Is Born)

The Plague in Loudun, 1632

In 1632, Loudun faced a devastating plague with a death toll of $3{,}700$ deaths out of a population of roughly $14{,}000$ people (May–September). The plague echoed the earlier outbreak of $1603$ .
Physicians and others withdrew to country houses as the plague broke out; notable figures such as François Fourneau, Jean Fouquet, and René Maunoury fled and would later serve as interpreters and witnesses to events among the Ursuline nuns.
Contemporary explanations framed the plague as an evil without clear cause or explanation, “an evil from within the body of a society” that spread through social bodies. It was understood as an epidemic tied to social and divine forces rather than a clinical illness with remedy. A witness from Avignon wrote: the scourge was the "scourge of God" descending on the city, with no treatment capable of overcoming it.
Common responses were to shutter cities or flee with covered heads; there were warnings to protect oneself with various odorous substances, reflecting a belief in a “physics of the air.” Popular measures included:
- Use of perfumes and odorous substances (aqua, terebinth, wine rose, rose-cakes) to create a different atmosphere.
- Wearing perfume on gloves, shirts, handkerchiefs, hair, and beard.
- Rich households using perfumes; the poor storing laurel, rosemary, juniper, cade, and cypress leaves for burning in the home, particularly in the morning and evening.
The plague’s lingering impact left a theological “mark” on Loudun; the plague came to be followed by a form of possession that offered a more definite explanation attributed to extraordinary, diabolical causes beyond ordinary human nature.
By 1632 Loudun was already seeking exorcists for the plague. A physician from Mirebeau, Prégent Bonnereau, declined responsibility; Guillaume Grémian was eventually called. Sanitations were established where plague victims were isolated. In reality, groups withdrew to their own spaces: physicians and property owners fled to fields; the Ursuline nuns isolated behind their walls, suspending ordinary communication.
Among the Ursuline nuns, Urbain Grandier, parish priest of Saint-Pierre, was noted as courageous and generous, administering last rites and aiding the poor.

A City Broken

The plague traumatized Loudun and disrupted urban life, echoing plague experiences in other parts of France and Europe.
The plague destabilized mental and intellectual structures, generating terror, mystic fervor, mortifications, and, under the quiet of heaven, blasphemy and Saturnalia.
The concurrent Wars of Religion had already left lasting scars; yesterday’s enemies were forced to coexist, breeding skepticism and a fragile social unity.
Public assemblies were forbidden to prevent contagion, eroding visible religious unanimity and forcing a shift from communal religious life to work-based solidarity; this contrasted with small, closed groups (e.g., the Ursulines).
In the broader municipal response, laypeople, magistrates, and physicians founded civil sanitary institutions and sought cures, “work” becoming a remedy where God’s silence persisted.
The social structure began to fragment; religious communities retreated to their own trenches, while social cohesion depended on the resilience of work and the cohesion of small groups.

Phantoms and the First Apparitions

The first “apparitions” or phantomlike appearances began during the plague’s tail end, around the night between September 21 and 22, 1632.
The prioress Jeanne des Anges, the sub-prioress Sister de Colombiers, and Sister Marthe de Sainte-Monique observed a shadowy figure during the night shortly after a nun had completed a retreat.
By October 7, the haunting figure had become clearly identified with Urbain Grandier, the parish priest of Saint-Pierre, and the visions shifted from nocturnal to diurnal presentations, losing their initial mystery and becoming more personally identifiable.

The Procession of the Clerics

Clergy arrived in sequence at the convent (Saint-Ursule) where the nuns were unsettled by cries and convulsions.
Early exorcists included:
- Jean Mignon (canon of Loudun), the convent’s new chaplain
- Antonin de la Charité (prior of Loudun)
- Eusèbe de Saint-Michel (Carmelite)
- Eloi de Saint-Pierre (Carmelite)
- Calixte de Saint-Nicholas (Carmelite)
- Pierre Thomas de Saint-Charles (Carmelite)
- Philippe de Saint-Joseph (Carmelite)
- Eugène de Saint-René (prior of Poitiers)
A specialist in exorcisms, Pierre Barré (a bachelor from the Faculty of Paris, canon of Chinion) arrived with a group of parishioners and took charge from October 12 on.
Others involved: François Grillau (warden of the Cordeliers), Uriel (warden of the Capuchins), Elisée de Chinon (Capuchin), Pierre Rangier (curé of Notre-Dame-de-Veniers), Mathurin Rousseau (canon of Sainte-Croix).
In total, ten to fourteen priests began exorcisms; the town’s people wondered if there were not enough priests to stay home, but the clergy framed this as a ministry, not curiosity. The event was quickly labeled a possession by those involved.
Back in the town, many people suspected the whole affair was imposture, and the prioress’s quarters became the center of a theological and sacred contest.

The Possession Takes Hold

The initial period before public exposure was a time of ambiguity, oscillating between uplifting religious drama and alleged diabolical trickery, a short moment in which the possession begins to take hold.
Within a few days, the ambiguity was resolved: the devil was held responsible for the strange events, and exorcisms were deemed expedient (October 1).
Once the possession was recognized, a sorcerer became the designated target (October 5–11).
The diabolical, initially treated as a neuter singular, quickly diversified into a plural; the devils used names drawn from traditional demonology (e.g., Astarte, Zabulon), as embodied by possessed nuns who took on voices and faces shaped by tradition.
Within three weeks, the stage was set for the play that would unfold.

The First Minutes (October 7, 1632)

Minutes from October 7 reveal a small group drafting the initial report in the monastery of the Daughters of Saint-Ursule:
- The report is signed by Mignon, Pierre Barré, Eusèbe de Saint-Michel, and Pierre Thomas de Saint-Charles.
The group reported that since the night of September 21–22, they had been “obsessed” by evil spirits until October 3.
The report describes, in one instance, an appearance of a specter in the form of a clergyman, cloaked and holding a book, attempting to force the prioress to receive the book; the spirit mourned and wept, and the nun promised to speak to her superior about it.
The demon’s confessions grow more precise as the exorcisms proceed, including the idea of an evil pact and the presence of thorny spells linked to possession.

The Enemy of God; the Demon Voices

During the first exorcism (October 5), the demon refused to state its name, saying only “Enemies of God.”
During the litany line “Sancte Joannes Baptista, ora pro eis” (Saint John the Baptist, pray for them), the demon said “Ha-ha! John the Baptist.”
When the exorcism concluded, the demon insulted the rite: “Sacerdos” (priest) and repeated it as the exorcism was recited.
In the second exorcism, the devil, instructed to state its name in Latin, answered in French: “Ha-ha, did not tell you.” Later, “Enemy of God.”
The demon asked for three more weeks and confessed: “I burn.”
In the third exorcism, the prioress was deprived of sense; when pressed to say the demon’s name, the entity repeated: “Enemy of God,” and then claimed, “I told it to you.”
The demon indicated involvement in a “pact” and, further pressed, declared: “I burn.”
Asked about the author of the pact, the demon replied: “Pact.” Later, asked who introduced him, the demon said: “I burn,” and then claimed to be an evil force bound by a priest—a recurring theme in exorcism narratives.
In the exorcism, Sister Claire, after similar exorcism, laughed and twice said the demon’s name was Zabulon.
On October 11, the demon’s name was finally given as Astaroth, and its mode of ingress was attributed to a pact with the pastor of St. Peter’s, “Per pactum Pastoris ecclesiae S. Petri.”
The demon identified Urbain Grandier as the priest responsible for the possession: the demon named him as “the curé of St. Peter’s,” and the demon insisted the priest’s influence was the cause of the possession.

The Turning Point: The Accusation of Urbain Grandier

On October 11, Grandier was named as a sorcerer; the accusation linked him to the conjurings and the possession, consolidating all earlier suspicions into a single, grave charge.
The accusation of Grandier’s sorcery synthesized multiple crimes (murder, witchcraft, spells, etc.) and embedded the case within a broader legal framework—reflected in the royal letter of August 12, 1632, granting authority to curb “homicides, murders, rebellions against the justice system, evil spells, poisonings, and sorceries.”
The minutes from October 11, signed by Mignon and other clerics, document the formal accusation and the process that would escalate the case beyond the confessional circle into a public legal-judicial matter.

The Rules of the Game: Social Order and Spectacle

The social order and entrance sequence into the process reflected Loudun’s hierarchy: rank and proximity determined who could participate and when.
By October 25, a witness, M. Dugrès (a man of honor and good family), sought recognition to enter the bedroom and “approach the bed of said Prioress,” illustrating how social status governed access to the crisis space.
Rumors circulated that Grandier was named as the sorcerer, generating a spectacle that drew thousands of spectators from across Europe to the convent—a case described as one of the most famous possessions of the period.
The sequence of events followed a cycle established by a robust literary tradition: the possession, the exorcisms, and the accompanying narrative. The event’s structure drew on a well-known pattern of exorcism stories that lent the episode a sense of “histoire” (story) and “discours” (speaking about the spirits).
The possession unfolded within a convent that had once been a site of peaceful religious life, now transformed into a public stage and a battleground for truth claims.

Literary and Theoretical Frameworks: Histoire and Discours

The event’s unfolding was guided by models such as The Admirable History of the Possession by François Domptius (Chastellain, 1613), which laid out acts and a narrative sequence detailing the possession, right down to thorn and roses, providing a model for the structure of exorcism stories.
The accompanying Discours des esprits (Discourse of Spirits) by Sébastien Michaelis (Paris, 1612) provided a theoretical framework explaining the demons and their interactions in possession cases.
In Loudun, the unity between story and theory would be destabilized: the histoire (story) would be dramatized and psychologized, while the discours (theory) would fragment and yield room for alternative considerations.
As early as October 12, 1632, Jean Mignon drew a parallel with the Gaufridy affair’s death as a confession, suggesting that contemporary tomes and trials were used to interpret the Loudun case. The Gaufridy case was invoked as a normative benchmark to interpret the possession as a real phenomenon.
The archetype of a possession in the local culture operated as a norm before it could act as proof; the possession’s mechanism was familiar to inhabitants due to historical precedent, enabling rapid social consensus about the event’s nature.

The Medical and Administrative Sideshow: A Provincial Society Reconstituted

By mid-October, the possession connected a wide network: the lieutenant of the provostship (Paul Aubry) and clerks’ assistants (Pierre Thibault, Urbain Dupont) kept meticulous records.
Physicians from nearby towns (Mathieu Fanton, Charles Auger from Loudun; Vincent de Fos from Chatellerault; Alphonse Cosnier from Fontevrault; François Brion from Thouars) were drawn into the investigations.
The possession created a parlor-like game in which the bewitched became the center of attention; around the afflicted stood a reconstituted provincial society, a social microcosm organized around the possession, with the bewitched at the center and the demon acting as a dummy in the social performance.
The doctors and magistrates formed a network that contributed to the case’s legitimacy; the full set of legal and medical figures joined the case as it escalated, turning the event into a public matter with legal consequences.

Thematic Synthesis: Belief, Evidence, and Enunciation

The Loudun affair reveals how belief, ritual, and rational frameworks intersect in a crisis; the exorcisms, the names of demons, and the priestly accusation reflect a fusion of religious ritual, folklore, and emerging modern inquiry.
The process demonstrates how “enunciation” operates in a crisis; the voices and confessions of demons are interpreted within a social and religious frame that assigns cause and agency to human actors (e.g., Urbain Grandier).
The event is often used in psychoanalytic and historical theory to examine how history constructs its own narratives, and how the language of possession functions as a way to articulate fears about sexuality, power, and social order.
Works cited in the secondary literature include Freud’s A Seventeenth-Century Demonological Neurosis and Michel Foucault’s Madness and Civilization, which are used to examine the epistemological problem at the center of the Loudun affair and the question of “what counts as truth” in historical recounting.

Aftermath, Legacy, and Bibliography

The narrative surrounding Loudun has generated a substantial scholarly bibliography, including:
- Etienne Delcambre; Francis Bavoux; Christian Pfister; P. Villette — foundational works on sorcery and witchcraft.
- J. Michelet, La Sorcière (Paris, 1862) and the 1966 reprint (pp. 195–207).
- G. Legué and Gilles de la Tourette, Soeur Jeanne des Anges… Autobiographie d'une hystérique possédée (Paris, 1886).
- A. Huxley, The Devils of Loudun (London, 1952).
- J. Texier, Le procès d'Urbain Grandier (Poitiers, 1953).
- M. Foucault, Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique (Paris, 1961).
- J. Viard, Le procès d'Urbain Grandier (Paris, 1964).
- R. Mandrou, Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1968).
- E. W. Monter, European Witchcraft (New York, 1969).
Psychoanalytic interpretation: Sigmund Freud, A Seventeenth-Century Demonological Neurosis, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 19; and M. de Certeau, The Writing of History, on the problem of enunciation and how language alters the sorcerer’s speech.
The Loudun affair remains a focal point in discussions of the history of psychology, the sociology of religion, and the study of early modern civil and ecclesiastical authority.

Primary Sources and Bibliography (Selected)

The Admirable History of the Possession by François Domptius (Paris: Chastellain, 1613) — a model for the exorcism narrative, structured into acts with detailed accounts of thorn and roses.
Discours des esprits by Sébastien Michaelis (Paris: Chastellain, 1612) — a theoretical framework to interpret the devils and their dealings in possession cases.
The Loudun documents collected by M. Charles Barbier (Paris, 1880; expanded 1884) — includes primary materials and critical notes.
Urbain Grandier et les possédées de Loudun. Documents pour servir à l'histoire médicale des possédées de Loudun by G. Legué (Paris, 1874) — a collection of texts relevant to the medical interpretation.
Soeur Jeanne des Anges… Autobiographie d'une hystérique possédée by G. Legué and Gilles de la Tourette (Paris, 1886).
The Devils of Loudun by A. Huxley (London, 1952).
Le procès d'Urbain Grandier by J. Texier (thesis, Poitiers, 1953).
Foucault, Madness and Civilization (trans. 1965) — foundational for understanding the epistemology of madness and crowd dynamics in early modern Europe.
J.-J. Surin, Correspondance (ed. M. de Certeau) (Paris, 1966).
R. Mandrou, Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1968).
E. W. Monter, European Witchcraft (New York, 1969).
Freud, A Seventeenth-Century Demonological Neurosis (in The Standard Edition, vol. 19).
M. de Certeau, The Writing of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) — for discussions on the problem of enunciation and historical interpretation.

Note: Some pages provided (Pages 1, 7, 15–17) include garbled or non-readable text. The notes above synthesize the coherent sections (Pages 2–14) to convey the core events, interpretations, and scholarly references related to the Loudun possession narrative.