Duc de Richelieu, debunked?

Magia posthuma

Niels added an interesting comment to my coverage on the Duc de Richelieu's vampire investigations.

We've both found that Augustin Calmet seems to be the earliest source of the claim. The first public reference to the investigation was in the second volume of Calmet's Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons & des esprits et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie & de Silesie (1746). As noted, the reference was removed in the 1751 edition. Why?

To be honest, my suspicions were roused after finding out Calmet said he heard about it from someone. The person in question was not even the Duc, himself, but possibly Louis Antoine Charles, Marquis de Beauvau (1715–1744)¹, going on what I've been able to decipher from Calmet's book via Google Translate.

Niels cited Aribert Schroeder [Vampirismus: seine Entwicklung vom Thema zum Motiv, 1973], who determined that the Duke had left Vienna on 5 May 1728, thus rendering Calmet's recount 'apocryphal'. I have checked out Shroeder's references and here's what he said:

Calmet behauptet dagegen, König Ludwig XV. habe sich so sehr für die Nachrichten über den Vampiraberglauben interessiert, daß er seinen außerordentlichen Botschafter in Wien, den Duc de Richelieu, beauftragt habe, dieser Problematik nachzugehen. Freilich hätte es der obigen Beobachtungen nicht bedurft, um Calmets Behauptung, die häufig in der Literatur über den Vampirismus wiederholt wurde, zu entkräften. Es genügt nämlich, daran zu erinnern, daß der Duc de Richelieu im Juli des Jahres 1725 in Wien eintraf und diese Stadt im Mai des Jahres 1728 bereits wieder verließ.²

Or,

Calmet says, however, King Louis XV. had so much interested in the news about the vampire superstition that he had instructed his ambassador extraordinary to Vienna, the Duc de Richelieu, to investigate this problem. Of course it was not necessary to the above observations to refute Calmet assertion that was repeated frequently in the literature about vampirism. It is sufficient to remember that the Duc de Richelieu, in July 1725 in Vienna and that city arrived in May of 1728 already left again.

Quite. But does that mean Calmet's source is automatically invalidated? Not necessarily.

Even though certain authors have given a rough timeline of the Duke's report (pre-1730), Calmet, himself, did not provide a date. If the investigation was conducted in the wake of the Peter Plogojowitz case, as some authors suggest, that still leaves us ample time. After all, the first public mention of the case was in the Wienerisches Diarium's 25 July 1725 issue. Thus, we're left with a three year gap.

However, Niels further citations, regarding Shroeder's references to Lenglet Dufresnoy, are more convincing. Shroeder went on to say:

Außerdem berichtet der Geistliche Lenglet du Fresnoy, der ein Buch über Calmets Werk verfaßte, daß der Duc de Richelieu Calmets Darstellung öffentlich widersprochen und den Herausgeber getadelt habe. Calmet reagierte offensichtlich auf diese Intervention, denn er ersetzte in seinen Überarbeitungen das "Zeugnis" Richelieus durch das anderer Personen.³

Or,

Also reported the minister Lenglet du Fresnoy, who wrote a book about Calmet plant that the Duc de Richelieu Calmet display publicly contradicted and criticized the publisher did. Calmet apparently responded to this intervention, since he replaced in his revisions to the "testimony" of Richelieu by other people.

Niels linked to Lenglet Dufresnoy's book, from which I 'read' this:

Je me suis contenté de donner un Extrait de M. Huet Evêque d'Avranches, omis par le sçavant Abbé de Senones. Mais si l'on me demandoit ce que j'en pense, je répondrois que je vois rien que de très douteux dans ce qu'en rapporte cet habile Religieux; & lui-même en convient sur la sin de sa Dissertation. Une seule chose m'avoit ebranlé, & en ébranleroit beaucoup d'autres: c'est le temoignage de M. le Maréchal Duc de Richelieu, cité comme certain par le R. P. Calmet. Je suis néanmoins revenu à mon premier sentiment, dès que j'ai sçû que set illustre Seigneur avoit publiquement défavoué ce qu'on lui avoit fait dire à ce sujet. Il a même fait quelques reproches à la personne qui avoit été chargée de publier les Dissertations de ce Pere, & a témoigné qu'il étoit fâché qu'on l'eut cité en pareille matiere, sans en avoir son aveu.⁴

Or,

I simply give an extract of M. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, omitted by the Abbot of Senones learned man. But if I demanded what I think, I anfwer I see nothing but very doubtful that this Religious reports that clever, and he himself agrees on the sin of his dissertation. One thing m'avoit shaken & ébranleroit in many others: it is the testimony of Marshal Duc de Richelieu, cited as some of the R. P. Calmet. However, I am back to my first feeling, when I known how the Lord had set illustrates défavoué publicly what he had been told about it. He even made ​​some blame to the person who had been responsible for publishing the Dissertations of the Father, and testified that he was sorry that the city was in such matters, without his consent.

On the surface, some damning (if slightly illegible) stuff. But is Dufresnoy's evidence, in turn, anecdotal? I'd love to see some firsthand stuff from Duc de Richelieu, himself, denying his involvement in any vampire investigations.

---

^{1. See 'Duc de Richelieu's investigation' and this link and this one.↩}

^{2. A Shroeder, Vampirismus: seine Entwicklung vom Thema zum Motiv, Studienreihe Humanitas, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 1973, p. 61.↩}

^{3. ibid., p. 61–2.↩}

^{4. L Dufresnoy, Traité historique et dogmatique sur les apparitions, les visions & les révélations particulieéres: avec des observations sur les Dissertations du r. p. Dom Calmet, abbé de Sénones, sur les apparitions & les revenans, vol. 1, Chez Jean-Noel Leloup, Avignon, 1751, p. xxvii–xxviii.↩}