Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
The Count Fable (Hoax) and When Did Jean Latourrette Leave Osse, Bearn?
This is a supplement to the author’s monograph Jean Latourrette and Pierre Peiret, Huguenot Refugees: Their Roots in Osse, Bearn and his posting on the Latourette Family Forum dated March 6, 2008, the Legend of the Count de Latourrette. See http://genforum.genealogy.com/latourette/messages/378.html
In this posting, a chronology is presented of some of the main events leading up to the flight of Jean Latourrette, Pastor Pierre Peiret, his family and several other Protestant parishioners from Osse in September of 1685. The date of their departure, before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes on October 22, 1685, is significant for several reasons, including the alleged timing of Jean Latourrette’s flight from Osse included in the count tale from 1843, cited in Hannah Lee’s Introduction (p. xiv) to The Huguenots in France and America. This fable is discussed in detail in the posting cited above. For the convenience of the reader the count fable, which appeared in Lee’s 1843 book, is presented again.
“My great-great grandfather was a native of La Vendee, and had there an estate on which he lived, and from which his family took the name, La Tourette. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, several Huguenot families in his neighborhood endured great persecution, and Henri de la Tourette was warned, that he was soon to be molested, any attempt at flight would be discovered, and only serve to hasten his condemnation. To avoid suspicion, he gave a large entertainment to which all the neighboring families were invited, and while the guests were assembled in the house, he left it with his wife, reached the seacoast, which was not far off, and made his escape on board a vessel bound to Charlestown. The ship was cast away on Staten Island, or, being in distress, was obliged to put in there, and there my great-grandmother, Marie de la Tourette, was born. A branch of the family still exists in France, which has adhered to Catholicism. The only female member of it is the Superior of a Convent, and the head of it, the Marquis de la Tourette, who is, or lately was, prefet of Aix-la-Chapelle. The chateau of La Tourette is still standing, but I do not know whether it is possession of the family. A few years since, one of the descendants, the Comte Eugene de la Tourette, came over from France in the hope of obtaining the family Bible, which Henri brought over in his flight. It contained the register of the births and descents (sic- descendants) of the family, which, had it been in our possession, would have enabled us Huguenot descendants to claim property which was confiscated at the time of the persecution. The Bible, however, had been long since given to a family who had removed to Germany, and could not be traced.”
(Source: See cited posting above.)
Lee did not identify the author of this version of the count tale, but from the relationship described therein, the author of this version was obviously a Broome, certainly not a Latourrette. The great grandmother Marie Latourrette cited in the fable married a Samuel Broome and descendants were prominent citizens of New York City in the early 19th century when the fable was written and sent to Lee. Also, it is obvious from earlier postings that La Vendee, as a French province, did not exist at the time of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, announced on October 22, 1685. (Even Lyman Latourette in his 1954 Annals made this point. Moreover, he could find no such castle.) Therefore, the location was fabricated, which sent later generations of American descendants of Jean Latourrette scurrying around France to find a Latourrette castle. Perhaps the scurrying intensified in the last century, because it became obvious to some American descendants there never had been a castle at Osse, Bearn. (Now Osse-en-Aspe, France.) Also, the absence of a castle at Osse appears to have encouraged even more inventive (fabricated) hoaxes to rescue the count tale from oblivion.
Jean Latourrette was a single, unmarried male when he left Osse, Bearn and his marriage in New York on July 16, 1693 was his only one to Marie Mercereau (The Registers, p. 29-30 of the French Church of New York, edited by Rev. Wittmeyer, clearly show that the version of the marriage in French presented by Lyman Latourette in his Annals (p. 19) was doctored to allow the interpretation that this was a second marriage. Even though the correct source is cited by Lyman, the text he presents is not the original. See Marriage of Jean Latourrette and Marie Mercereau in posting http://genforum.genealogy.com/latourette/messages/288.html ).
The path that Jean Latourrette and Pastor Peiret, accompanied by several parishioners, followed was not to the French coast, but overland to Frankfurt, then to Rotterdam and London. Again, the alleged voyage to South Carolina is just a fabrication, as is the landfall on Staten Island. Pastor Peiret, his family, and Jean Latourrette arrived in the village of New York in October 1687 from London on the English ship Robert. The great grandmother, Marie, cited in the tale was born on September 23, 1693 in New York and baptized by Pastor Peiret on December 6, 1693. (Registers, p. 33) She was not born on Staten Island. It is clear from even Lyman’s Annals that the family did not move to Staten Island until around 1698.
In the posting about the Legend of the Count de Latourrette it is demonstrated that the rest of the tale has no substance because the count referenced was a Ladoucette not a Latourette.
(See http://genforum.genealogy.com/latourette/messages/378.html
Was this an intentional mistake to justify the tale?
In this posting (below) it is demonstrated that Jean and the others who fled from Osse left a month before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes on October 22, 1685. Therefore, the description of holding a party after learning of the Revocation has no substance.
So, there is not one element of the 1843 tale that is substantiated, except the possible relationship between the author likely named Broome, who was living around 1841-43, and Marie Latourrette, born in 1693. Moreover, the author of the fable didn’t seem to know that Marie’s father was Jean, not Henri. It will be an interesting exercise to trace the lineage from Marie, who married Samuel Broome, to determine the likely author who concocted this tale.
To this point the count tale has been treated as a fable. But in this version, and especially in those which follow in the next 150 years, there are so many fabricated facts and misrepresentations of facts that the tale takes on the form of a hoax. One definition of a hoax is "something intended to deceive or defraud." Another definition is that of “a practical joke.” If so, the joke appears to be on those who have blindly accepted this hoax.
Of additional interest are the people who perpetuated the hoax and their motives. It appears tracing this hoax to its creators will be the only way the true stories of Jean Latourrette and Osse will be accorded the recognition they deserve.
HOW DID THE COUNT TALE/HOAX DEVELOP?
The notion of a count may have developed from fragments of information being passed down from Jean and Marie and their children about Osse and being embellished by later generations. It appears from what we know about Osse Jean Latourrette was likely the second son of David Latourrette who was the most prominent member of the Protestant community. It also appears that David was likely a direct descendant of Gassiot Latourrette, the first minister of Osse in 1563. These assumptions are based on circumstantial evidence. The several French genealogists who are working on Osse and particularly the Latourrette family are slowly piecing together the lineages from archival information, because Louis XIV ordered all the Protestant baptism and marriage records to be destroyed. This was the case at Osse. In addition, most of the archival records at Osse and some at Pau, the capital of Bearn, were destroyed over the years by fires. Recently, these genealogists found a document that clearly links David and his son Jacob (born about 1650), who is considered to have been the oldest son and thus the heir under the laws and customs of Bearn, as prescribed in the Fors de Bearn. Therefore, Jean, likely the second son, was not an heir and at the time not married. This is one of the reasons he may have left Osse, because the opportunities for a successful life became even more limited under the severe restrictions imposed by Louis XIV.
NOTE: At least one of the French genealogists, a descendant of Jacob, whose extensive genealogical work is equivalent to the most professional work the author has seen in either America or France, is not fully convinced that the Jean Latourrette who came to America from Osse was from the prominent Osse (Gassiot- David) branch of the family. There were other Latourrette families in the villages of the Aspe Valley from which a single man at this time (September 1685) may have left with Pastor Peiret.
David, the likely father, held the title abbe laique d’Osse. This title and associated property, which included the Gayrosse maison fort (a strong house/not a castle) in Osse, was purchased by the Osse Latourrette family and came into the possession of David (ca 1625-1697). It is not known exactly how David came into the possession of the title and property. There is a record of 1667 in which he renews the title for another 16 years, following the rules included in the Fors de Bearn. It is clear, however, from the earlier Osse records going back to the census of 1385 that the Latourrettes are not descendants of the Seigneur de Gayrosse, a legitimate count who once was an absentee owner of the property and who carried the title, but long before 1600 had sold it to another party. As described in the Legend posting, cited above, Osse did not have any ruling family. “The Fors de Bearn, the rules which historically governed society in the Aspe valley, created a system in which the heads of the major families (les bonnes maisons) governed the villages. In other words, there was no dominant family of prestigious nobility governing Osse in 1685.” (Author’s note: This is the wording suggested by Professor Philippe Chareyre, the director of the Center for the Study of Bearnais Protestantism.)
Therefore, it appears that the tale/hoax originated with the notion that David, the presumed father of Jean, had a title. In Osse, it meant that he was a man of some prominence, education and modest wealth, but not a count with vast estates and great wealth. At the time, no one in the village could be termed wealthy as indicated by David’s first son Jacob’s continued attempt to recover 101 francs after his father’s death in 1697 in a legal case that stretched from 1686 to 1701. To place this in perspective, the annual salary of Peiret, the last Protestant minister (1677-85) before 1685, was 400 francs. The records of the consistory (parish) from 1665 to 1685 bear out David’s status as generally an equal among other heads of families and the equalitarian nature of Osse. David was a respected person who was occasionally called on for advice or a special assignment, but was generally treated as one of the heads of families. He served two 4 year terms as an elder between 1665 and 1685, but during the other periods he was very careful not to interfere in the consistory’s business except as requested. Any attempt to do so would have violated the principles of the parish and the laws and customs of the Fors de Bearn. Today, perhaps, one would refer to David as a first among equals.
The title abbe laique d’Osse (secular or lay abbot) originated historically in Bearn from the practice of allowing the person bearing this title to collect a tax to support the Catholic Church. The valley was very poor and only a person of some wealth like the Seigneur de Gayrosse could afford to build a church. Therefore, this person was given the title abbe laique (lay abbot) and was allowed to collect a tax to maintain the Catholic faith in the village. The tax was supposed to provide, after subtracting an administrative fee, the support for a priest and the operation of the Catholic parish. The tax collected from the holding of animals and farm products of the villagers, usually in kind, was called La dime (a tenth), but according to Madame Gilberte Gaubil, the current president of the Protestant parish, the records of the time indicate that the percentage and frequency of collection varied a great deal depending on what product or animal was taxed. Before Protestantism came to Osse in 1563, the abbe laique also had the authority to nominate the priest for the Catholic parish. During the 20 years of persecution leading up to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, it appears David attempted to exercise his rights under the title and divide the funds collected between the Catholics and Protestants which resulted in disputes with the local priest and law suits which are partially explained in Alfred Cadier’s Le Bearn Protestant, which reviews the history of Protestantism in Osse.
(See Cadier, Part 2, Chapter III, The Internal Organization of the Temple of Osse, 1665-1685, pp. 139-213. Title translated from the French.)
By his American descendants, David’s title of abbe laique was embellished into nobility as a count with vast estates. (See the posting The Tale of Two (Latourrette) Brothers Coming to America http://genforum.genealogy.com/latourette/messages/315.html . As noted above, this type of nobility was foreign to Osse in the 16th and 17th centuries. David was well educated and the most prominent man in the village of Osse. He was a man of some property which some American descendants thought they could reclaim after the French Revolution, assuming that Jean was the heir. But the property had already been passed on under the Fors de Bearn to the first son, Jacob (ca 1650-1711), and then his heirs.
Here, we turn to the chronology that explains Jean left Osse a month before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and, therefore the statement in the count hoax that he threw a party after the Revocation is just another fabrication, along with every other alleged fact in the story found in Hannah Lee’s book of 1843.
Chronology
Meeting of the Osse Protestant consistory (parish), September 5, 1684: The consistory, “in order to liquidate in part, has seen fit to make an inventory of the remaining” under deacon Arabanet’s watch. This is the last meeting recorded in the consistory registers.
(Consistory record of that date indicating the Protestant temple was bankrupted after its legacy was seized by Louis XIV, creditors were demanding payment, and parishioners were not able to support their faith.)
Peiret was arrested in November 1684 for violating the orders of Louis XIV “for preaching in private houses and in places where the practice was not allowed” and was placed under house arrest for trial. (It is clear from the record that he was preaching in defiance of this order and continued to do so after placed under house arrest.)
On February 26, 1685, the Parliament of Navarre (included Bearn) recorded an edict, proclaimed by Intendant Nicholas Foucault, the King’s administrator, which reduced the number of Protestant temples in Bearn to five from the 20 which were supposed to exist by the “perpetual and irrevocable” edict of 1668. The remaining locations were Garlin, Jurancon, Bellocq, Saint-Gladie and Osse. Osse was the only Temple left to serve the Aspe Valley, because the act eliminated the temple at Oloron, which was immediately destroyed. Foucault had an underlying sinister purpose. “I decided, he said, to allow only the temples, precisely five of them, where the ministers had been hit by an (earlier) decree which condemned their temples to be demolished, of which knowledge was sent back to parliament, so that, by this means, there could be no temple left in Bearn.”
(Key points here and following are drawn from Cadier, Part 2, Chapter IV, The Intendant Foucault in Bearn: March 1, 1684 – End August 1685, pp 185 -198, translated from the French. See particularly Cadier, p. 186))
All temples, including Osse, were closed by April of 1685. The other ministers were arrested or fled. Peiret remained in Osse but he absolved the consistory by an entry in the registers of any further responsibility for or obligation to him. “I undersigned declare that I am paid all the wages, hay and wood for the whole time I have served the church of Osse and in this way acquit the said church fully and entirely promising never to petition it nor to make a request, written in Osse April 16, 1685, Peyret, minister.” Signed Peiret. (Consistory record of the date)
Peiret continued to visit the Protestants in Osse in open defiance of the November decree against him. He may have also visited the Protestants in Issor. (Issor is 18 kms or about 11 miles north of Osse.)
The list of Jean de Tapie, procureur du Roy au Parsan d’Aspe dated September 2, 1685, identified the Protestants of Osse, including David Latourrette’s spouse and the Peiret family, who refused to convert. Tapie was sent by His Highness Dalon, president of the Parliament of Navarre, to register all of the “indomitable” Protestants who refused to convert to Catholicism in the Aspe district. Notably, all of the names are from Osse, supporting the conclusion that Osse was the one remaining Protestant community in the Aspe valley after the destruction of the temple at Oloron in February 1685. The other 4 remaining temples in Bearn are already closed. It appears that Osse may have been the only place remaining in Bearn in early September of 1685 where Protestantism was still being openly practiced. Certainly, the people on Tapie’s list were openly declaring their allegiance to the Protestant Reformed faith in defiance of King Louis XIV. (Relative to Tapie’s list, see the play about Osse on Webpage http://www.latourrette.net/osse_play.htm )
After the issuance of Tapie’s list, the dragoons came to Osse and the Reformed fled to the woods. Mid-September is likely the time, because in early October “seven to eight thousand fusiliers just come, as it is said, from converting the Protestants in Bearn” entered La Rochelle. The timing described here fits with Foucault’s action in Bearn and the issuance of Tapie’s list on September 2. Given its isolation in the Aspe valley, Osse was likely the last village to be invaded by the dragoons. (See Charles W. Baird, Huguenot Emigration to America, 1885, Vol. I, pp. 313-17, esp. p. 315)
A report, cited by Rev. Alfred Cadier, condemned Peiret for fleeing to avoid the galleys or death: “Osse lived in as big a rebellion; the minister preached in private houses and in places where the practice was not allowed. The information decreed and the search made for his person, he abandoned his people and fled, so that the practice of the said religion stopped in the district of Oloron in the said year 1685 and the temple was demolished in 1686.” (Cadier, p. 189)
An inquiry and a search warrant was issued against him in 1685 (French National Archives G7-113) and an arrest warrant on September 25, 1685. (The arrest warrant was issued after he was not found at Osse. Note: This appears to be in addition to the house arrest under which he was placed in November of 1684.)
Therefore, Pastor Pierre Peiret, his family, Jean Latourrette and some other unnamed parishioners, the latter never reaching New York, left Osse between September 2 and September 25, 1685.
October 22, 1685: The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
November 18, 1685: Jean Latourrette is in Frankfurt (now Germany) (Research from an unpublished paper about Osse by a member of the Council of the Center for the Study of Béarnaise Protestantism)
They continue to Rotterdam and London, and eventually reach New York in October of 1687.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/latourette/messages/400.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|