因为看到格朗迪埃案涉及的物证，顺便把自己关于此案的旧翻译也搬来：
乌尔班·格朗迪埃主持着圣皮埃尔教区（held the living of Saint-Pierre，字面意为“领圣皮埃尔教区的圣俸”，个人认为可作“主持教区”理解）并在圣克洛瓦教士团教堂领有一个教士席位（canon’s stall at the collegiate church of Sainte-Croix，关于collegiate church这个宗教名词解释起来比较复杂，具体见wiki相关条目）。他正值盛年，容貌英俊，博学多才。僧侣的独身生活使他感到是个沉重的负担。他曾撰写一篇严肃的论文从原则上攻击这一制度；在行动上，他放任自己过着自由放纵的生活，这使得他与教区居民和他的主教发生了一些矛盾。通过求助于巴黎高等法院和他的大主教，他平安无事地躲过了世俗法庭和宗教法庭数次针对他的诉讼，但他的幸运是否长久是值得怀疑的。
在这一时期，关于“卢敦的乌尔苏拉女修院被魔鬼占据”的谣言正在四散传播。据说受害者中包括女修院的院长德·贝尔西埃夫人以及德·拉齐利夫人，后者出身于一个与黎塞留的家族关系密切的家庭。格朗迪埃与女修院没有任何关系，但它的精神导师（spiritual director）米涅昂修士是他的敌人之一。他很可能是第一个对格朗迪埃提出质疑的人。在驱魔的过程中修女们接受了反诘问并指控圣皮埃尔的本堂神父对她们下了魔咒。这可能是因为她们受人教唆，也可能是她们将传到耳中的流言蜚语在幻想中加工的结果。
与此同时，黎塞留打算派一名王室专员去卢敦监管平毁城堡事项，为此他需要选择一名他认为是忠诚的文职官员。此人是一个名为洛巴德蒙的国务顾问。他到达后发现“恶魔附体的修女”一事在城中传得沸沸扬扬，遂将此事报告给宫廷。他立刻下令逮捕格朗迪埃，并对他提起诉讼。很快，新任掌玺大臣塞吉埃下达了更为专断的命令：国王下令对神父所犯罪行进行严格审讯，并为此设立一个委员会审查此案。此前巴黎的军械厂法院（La Chambre de l’Arsenal）刚刚以施行魔法罪处决了一个名为博夏尔的神父。我们因此可以推测掌玺大臣下达给洛巴德蒙的命令是鼓励他作出相同的判决。
格朗迪埃坚称自己是清白的，并同意当着普瓦蒂埃主教的面亲自为修女们除魔；但他面对的是一群歇斯底里的女人，她们辱骂他、用种种方式激怒他。尽管他坚定有理地为自己辩护，他还是为这令人震惊的一幕付出了代价。终于，在1634年8月18日，他被判处死刑，受到拷打并被活活烧死。直到最后一刻他仍坚持自己并未犯下任何渎圣或巫术的罪行，因而无可忏悔。临死前他用最后的力量请求上帝怜悯，为自己其他的罪行表示悔恨并请求宽恕他的敌人。
乌尔班·格朗迪埃案在十七世纪的历史上留下了黑暗的一页。黎塞留的敌人和新教徒们将此事归咎于他，指责他公报私仇。对历史研究来说，红衣主教是否真的相信修女们被魔鬼附体是无足轻重的，但对格朗迪埃的判决显示他很可能想借此事杀一儆百。然而一个人被如此不公正的判决毁灭，其更显著的效果在于使人们看到了这样一种可能：一个人可以因他从未犯下的罪行被折磨和烧死，却仍然符合法律的程序――这一切无不揭示出黎塞留时代的司法所具有的中古式的独裁的本质。格朗迪埃的受审和死亡在公众间引发的恐惧显示，甚至在当时人们已经对这样的司法深恶痛绝。一个世纪后，路易十三一朝的编年史家格里菲神父在他的著作中谈及此事时，表现出了相当大的困窘。他仅以一个苍白无力的借口搪塞：“当然，”他写道，“这样的判决在今日是不会被采纳的，但在当时，显然所有法庭都会接受它。”
Urbain Grandier held the living of Saint-Pierre and a canon’s stall at the collegiate church of Sainte-Croix. He was in the prime of life and a good-looking, intelligent and learned man. Clerical celibacy weighed heavily upon him. He had written a serious treatise attacking it in principle; and in practice he allowed himself liberties which involved him in difficulties with his parishioners and his bishop. By dint of appealing to the Parlement of Paris and his archbishop, he managed to escape unscathed from several suits brought against him in lay and ecclesiastical courts; but the very fact that he was lucky appeared suspicious.
In the meantime a rumor began to spread that some of the sisters at the Ursuline Convent in Loudun were possessed by devils. The Mother Superior, Mme de Belcier, was reported to be one of the victims and so was Mme de Razilly, a nun who belonged to a family which was closely connected with Richelieu’s own. Grandier had nothing to do with this convent, but its spiritual director, Canon Mignon, was one of his enemies. It was probably he who was the first to form suspicious. During the exorcisms the nuns were cross-examined, and named the curé of Saint-Pierre as the author of the evil spells cast upon them. In so doing they were yielding either to suggestions that had been put to them or to the workings of their own imaginations after pieces of malicious gossip had reached their ears.
Meanwhile Richelieu had sent a royal commissioner of Loudun to supervise the demolition of the chateau, choosing for the purpose a magistrate whom he regarded as loyal. The latter was a conseiller d’Etat named Laubardemont. He arrived to find the town and district in a turmoil over the affair of the possessed women, and he informed the court accordingly. He was immediately instructed to arrest Grandier and institute proceedings against him. Soon even more peremptory orders were issued by Seguier, the new keeper of the seals: the king commanded that a strict inquiry be made into all the misdeeds with which the curé had been charged and a commission was to be set up to judge the case. While this was going on the Chambre de l’Arsenal at Paris was condemning to death another priest, named Bouchard, who had been found guilty of practising magic. We may therefore allow that the instructions which he received from the keeper of the seals encouraged Laubardemont to pass a similar setence.
Grandier protested that he was innocent and agreed to exorcise the nuns himself in the presence of the bishop of Poitiers; but he found himself confronted by women convulsed with hysteria, who abused and provoked him. Despite his firm and reasonable defence he was held responsible for this shocking scene. Finally, on 18 August 1634, he was condemned to death, put to the torture and burnt alive. To the last he asserted that he had nothing to confess, that he had committed no act of sacrilege or sorcery. With his last remaining strength he implored God’s mercy, expressed repentance for his other sins and forgave his enemies.
The case of Urbain Grandier was to remain a notorious episode throughout the centuries. Richelieu’s enemies and the Protestants threw the blame on to him, charging him with carrying out a personal vendetta. Whether or not the cardinal believed that the nuns really were possessed has little relevance to history, but it seems probable that in allowing Grandier to be condemned he wished to “make an example” of him. But that a man could be tracked down with such blatant unfairness so that an example could be made of him, that he could be tortured and burnt alive on the strength of his evil reputation for acts which he had certainly not committed, yet in accordance with what was still the due process of law——all this serves to reveal the mediaeval and arbitrary nature of justice in Richelieu’s day. The horror which Grandier’s trial and death aroused in public opinion even at the time shows that people already felt that there was no defence for justice such as this. A century later Father Griffet, the historian of Louis XIII’s reign, displayed considerable embarassment at this point in his narrative, which he only circumvented by taking refuge in a lame excuse: “It is certain”, he wrote, “that the sentence was pronounced on evidence that would not be admitted today, but it was then the custom for all courts of justice to accept such evidence.”引自 The Interest of the State
