Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsébet Báthory (18 page)

      Rev. Zacharias had obviously dealt with her before. He spoke softly, as if to calm a lunatic or wild animal: "Your Grace should not believe this.”

      "I can prove with witnesses that it is so."

      At this point, Rev. Ponikenusz, who had managed to catch up with the conversation through his interpreter, declared, "I have preached God's word, and if it caused Your Grace to examine your conscience once, I have nothing to do with it, because I never named you."

      The Countess replied testily in her native Hungarian, “Then you—you will die first—and then Mr. Megyeri! You two have brought all this trouble upon me and are the cause of my arrest. What," she said," don’t you believe me that, because of this situation, a revolt will soon take place? The Hajduk (Transylvanian farmer soldiers), who have already gathered beyond the Theiss (river), have written to me yesterday that even the Prince of Transylvania will avenge my wrong!"

      Ponikenusz remained silent as this was spoken; according to him, his interpreter did not tell him everything that she said in Hungarian. However, the pastor noted that the Countess now wished to send off letters and that she called for a knight. She said nothing outloud, and no one questioned her as to what she was doing. Ponikenusz thought the man whom she called was someone from her entourage. The fact that she could still summon servants, send secret messages, and make threats made him very nervous.

      Meanwhile, the Countess continued to accuse the priests as the sole and unjustified cause of her imprisonment, maintaining her innocence. Rev. Zacharias attempted to change the subject: "Do you believe that Christ was born for you, died and rose for the forgiveness of sins?"

      She shot back, "I also know Peter Faber.” (Faber was a Catholic priest and co-founder of the Jesuit order who worked to bring Protestants, such as these ministers, back to the Church. What she said would have been insulting to them.)

      Immediately Rev. Zacharias gave her the Holy Bible and asked her to read it in prison, to which she retorted, "I need it not."

      Meanwhile, still stewing over her past remark, Ponikenusz demanded, "I want to know who has caused Your Grace to have so much contempt for me by claiming that I am the cause of your detention."

      She turned to him and said flatly, "I will not tell you.”

      Her temper suddenly flared. “Now you have angered me—“ she leveled her gaze at Rev. Zacharias, as well—“and soon both of you will have angered me!"

      “I do not wish to anger you,” Ponikenusz persisted. “I only wish to clear myself of the accusation of having been the reason for your detention.”

      "I have been a mistress and mother to all my staff,” she snapped back. “I have never been treated right, neither in the small nor the large—by either of you."

      Ponikenusz immediately insisted that she think well of him because he “prayed to God for forgiveness of [her] sins.”

      She looked at him for a moment and then said in her most patronizing way, "To ask God for the salvation of someone else—especially in a special case—is a good work."

      Meanwhile, Pastor Nicolaus Barosius, who had been present on the night of the raid, who had seen the dead or dying girls for himself and had heard from the still-living that they had been forced to eat their own cut-out flesh, stood by in silence while she went into another rage.

      “You nefarious and wicked priests are the cause of my captivity, but I gave my brother Gábor Báthory a message, and you'll soon have realized that you and your children will regret my fate!"

      “Your Grace,” Barosius suddenly spoke up, “Please do not despair but, rather, kindly accept this call to repentance and partake of Holy Communion.”

      Her face fell for a moment. It looked almost like a pout.

      “How could I do this when all of you are my enemies?”

      Barosius said gently, “Your Grace is surely aware of what all has already been discovered here and what terribleness has been confessed under torture by your old women and the servant Ficzkó.”

      Her expression suddenly hardened again.

      “I will not admit to anything,” she flared, “even if they torture me by fire!”

      “So then,” Barosius said, somewhat confused, “After considering all of this, you still stand by your statement that you are innocent and that only the old women committed these horrendous deeds?”

      “Yes,” she declared. “I stand firmly by it and nothing else.”

      “Then why,” he wanted to know, “did you allow your old women to do such things?”

      Her answer shocked all of the priests: “I did it,” she said, “because even I myself was afraid of them.”

      In those days,
Bytča
(Hungarian: Nagybiccse) was a part of Hungary and, today, is located in northwestern Slovakia at the Vah River near the cities of Žilina and Považská Bystrica. For all intents and purposes,
Byt
ča
was György Thurzó’s hometown: dominated by a 13
^th
century water castle, Thurzó’s father, Ferenc, commissioned Giovanni Kilian of Milan to restore the medieval castle in the new, Renaissance style during the years 1571-74. György Thurzó himself continued the project and also had a ceremonial Wedding Palace constructed next to the castle in 1601. At that time, the castle contained a school, libraries, archives, a prison, and a pharmacy.
Byt
ča
Castle, like Sárvár Castle, was a center of prosperity and enlightenment, known for its pomp and circumstance.

      In those days, testimonies from the criminally accused were gotten by means of torture in advance of depositions and trials. Beginning in the Middle Ages, torture accompanied all cases involving matters of faith. While early Roman common law opposed the use of torture and presumed that the accused was innocent until proven guilty, the Church reversed this position particularly during the Crusades and, later, during the Inquisition. In the following centuries, civil authorities also relied on the practice: guilt was presumed; innocence had to be proven.

      During the Inquisition, the use of torture to extract confessions from prisoners was taken to an art form and would later be used throughout both Protestant as well as Catholic Europe and the New World, not only for ordinary criminal cases but during the witch trials of coming years. Historian, John Gibbon, wrote, “No power under heaven could save the prisoner. He was doomed.” And Johann Weyer (1515-88), an eyewitness to the methods employed during the Inquisition, claimed that the victims were “slaughtered with the most refined tortures that tyrants could invent, beyond human endurance. And this cruelty is continued until the most innocent are forced to confess themselves guilty.”

      Although we do not know exactly what methods were used on Erzsébet’s four accomplices to extract their confessions, we do know what means were commonly used during the period: starvation, darkness, beatings, attempted drowning, burning, stretching and pulling, pressing with heavy weights, pinching, throttling, and the twisting and screwing of fingers, toes, and limbs.

      After being tortured, Ficzkó was summoned first to testify as both defendant and lead witness. His testimony, like that of the others, is recorded in Hungarian in the third person in the form, “he said,” as well as
he
,
she
, and
it
, alike. When the words
lady
,
wife
,
head lady
,
Mrs
., or
madam
are used, it is not always clear whether these salutations refer specifically to Erzsébet Báthory or to her female accomplices. The odd gaps or illogical connections in the text can perhaps be attributed to inaccurate witness testimony, later editing, or perhaps scribal error. In the case of inquisitorial proceedings, however, the quantity of evidence provided and used in the process, the commentary of those who verified the indictment, and relevance to their character took precedence over any conflicting facts. Indeed, it is often evident that shameless lying went on throughout the process with little notice or comment by the judicial authorities.

      The original transcripts, long-since sealed and forgotten, were found over two hundred years later in the attic at
Bytča and published in 1817.
In the original document of the proceeding, it is recognized that there existed still another version of the trial testimonies that was kept at a different location. Indeed, today a copy is preserved at the Thurzó archive in
Byt
ča
, one at the Erdödy archive in Galgóc (Hlohovec, in Slovak), and another at the National Archive in Budapest. Each transcript has fundamental differences in detail, which are highlighted below.

      During the trials of Lady Báthory Nádasdy, two separate proceedings were conducted: one taking place on January 2, 1611 in which the four servants apprehended at Castle Csejthe were interrogated on criminal charges for their own misconduct, and a companion investigation which ran almost simultaneously in which eye witnesses were called to testify against the Countess herself. Two separate writings memorialized the proceedings, and both are given below in their entirety.

      Of the first of the two trials held at
Byt
ča
, Thurzó ordered various officials to validate the proceedings. They included
Byt
ča
Castellan
, Casparus Echy (also spelled Gáspár Nagy-Najáky or Bajáky) and Gáspár Kardos. The trial was conducted in Hungarian and transcripts recorded in Hungarian and Latin by notary (magister) Dániel Eördeögh. Rev. Élias Lányi served as the sworn member of the Chancery.

      In the first document, titled,
Transcript of the Witness Interrogation Regarding the Cruel Deeds which Erzsébet Báthory, Wife of Count Ferenc Nádasdy, is Accused. 1611
, the four defendants (Ilona Jó Nagy, Dorottya Szentes, Katalin Beneczky, and János Újváry), testified. From this document, we learn more details concerning the activities of the Countess’ four servants whom she, herself, accused of being responsible for torturing and murdering so many.

      The four accused servants made frequent reference to deceased accomplice, Anna Darvolya. It may be that the accused defendants were playing the “empty chair defense” game by placing as much blame as possible on a defendant who was not, and could never be, present, thus relieving themselves of some guilt. Their testimony was fairly consistent, though, suggesting that Anna was influential, unbelievably cruel, and deadly. They placed blame equally on one another, however, as well as conceding individual wrongdoing and accusing locals of collaboration.

       According to Ficzkó, he went out six different times with Dorka in search of girls, promising the young ladies future employment as assistants and maids. He also rattled off a list of women who, likely in exchange for substantial “finder’s fees,” assisted with the procurement of girls. These “finder’s fees” must have been enormous: some of the people mentioned even brought their own daughters to the Countess, knowing full well what would likely happen to them.

      Ficzkó testified that Mrs. János Bársony, who lived near Gyöngyös near the town of Teplanfalva, had gone with Dorka searching for girls; Mrs. Matej, the Croatian who lived at Sárvár across from Lady János Zalay, participated; Mrs. Ján Szabo procured girls and even brought her own daughter—although this daughter was later killed and the mother knew about it, she still brought in more; the wife of Juraj (György) Szabo brought her daughter to Csejthe where she later died; Mrs. István Szabo brought girls; and Ilona Jó did so, as well. Accoring to Ficzkó, Katalin never brought in any but merely buried those whom Dorka had killed.

      Dorka contributed to the list, adding the name of János Szilay’s wife. Katalin Beneczky testified that two women, Mrs. Liptai (or Liptov) and Mrs. Kardos, also assisted, sometimes even traveling as far as the Jewish quarter in Vienna to find girls. Ilona Jó said that György Jánosy, a nobleman, brought in his young sister to Csejthe, in addition to two other girls of noble birth, including one from
Byt
ča
and two from Czegled. Mrs. Bársony apparently brought in a big and beautiful noble girl herself.

During their times of service, the four defendants placed the number of murdered girls in the range of thirty to fifty: Ficzkó estimated 37; Ilona Jó guessed 51, perhaps more; Dorka said 36; and Katalin put the number at 50.

      The responses to questions here are the same as those found in the original document. Some commentary has been provided to assist the reader, as well as indicators where the transcript versions differ. Variations in the transcripts, as well as commentary, appear in parentheses, with variations italicized. For English speakers who are familiar with the deposition testimony translated by Raymond T. McNally, significant as well as subtle differences can be found here. We find that this particular version, however, provides a number of interesting details that cannot be found elsewhere.

      In the forward “protocol” or summary of the questions posed to them, it states:

      “These are questions posed to persons of low (menial) birth against Lady Nádasdy, Erzsébet Báthory, on January 2, 1611 at the market town of
Byt
ča
where an assembly was held
. First. János Újváry, otherwise called Ficzkó, was interviewed on the following points and answers under his own admission”:

First:
How long had he been in the service of that Lady and how did he come to her court
.

Answer: Sixteen years, if not longer, he lived with the Lady, having been brought there to Csejthe by the wife of the teacher, Márton Deak, taken there by force.