The Life of Joan of Arc Part 123

[Footnote 2682: _Trial_, vol. v, pp. 212, 214. Lottin, _Recherches_, vol. i, p. 287. Duleau, _Vidimus d'une charte de Charles VII, concedant a Pierre du Lys la possession de l'Isle-aux-Boeufs_, Orleans, 1860, in 8vo. 6. G. Lefevre-Pontalis, _La fausse Jeanne d'Arc_, p. 28, note 1.]

[Footnote 2683: I have not made use of the very late evidence given by Pierre Sala (_Trial_, vol. iv, p. 281). It is vague and somewhat legendary, and cannot possibly be introduced into the Life of La Dame des Armoises. For the bibliography of this interesting subject, see Lanery d'Arc, _Le livre d'or de Jeanne d'Arc_, pp. 573, 580, and G.

Lefevre-Pontalis, _La fausse Jeanne d'Arc_, Paris, 1895, in 8vo, concerning the account given by M. Gaston Save.

There are those who have supposed, without adducing any proof, that this pseudo-Jeanne was a sister of the Maid (Lebrun de Charmettes, _Histoire de Jeanne d'Arc_, vol. iv, pp. 291 _et seq._). Francis Andre, _La verite sur Jeanne d'Arc_, Paris, 1895, in 18mo, pp. 75 _et seq._]

CHAPTER XVI

AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MAID (_continued_)--THE ROUEN JUDGES AT THE COUNCIL OF BaLE AND THE PRAGMATIC SANCTION--THE REHABILITATION TRIAL--THE MAID OF SARMAIZE--THE MAID OF LE MANS

From year to year the Council of Bale drew out its deliberations in a series of sessions well nigh as lengthy as the tail of the dragon in the Apocalypse. Its manner of reforming at once the Church, its members, and its head struck terror into the hearts of the sovereign Pontiff and the Sacred College. Sorrowfully did aeneus Sylvius exclaim, "There is a.s.sembled at Bale, not the Church of G.o.d indeed, but the synagogue of Satan."[2684] But though uttered by a Roman cardinal, even such an expression can hardly be termed violent when applied to the synod which established free elections to bishoprics, suppressed the right of bestowing the pallium, of exacting annates and payments to the papal chancery, and which was endeavouring to restore the papacy to evangelical poverty. The King of France and the Emperor, on the other hand, looked favourably on the Council when it essayed to bridle the ambition and greed of the Bishop of Rome.

[Footnote 2684: De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. iii, p.

335.]

Now among the Fathers who displayed the greatest zeal in the reformation of the Church were the masters and doctors of the University of Paris, those who had sat in judgment on Jeanne the Maid, and notably Maitre Nicolas Loiseleur and Maitre Thomas de Courcelles.

Charles VII convoked an a.s.sembly of the clergy of the realm in order to examine the canons of Bale. The a.s.sembly met in the Sainte-Chapelle at Bourges, on the 1st of May, 1438. Master Thomas de Courcelles, appointed delegate by the Council, there conferred with the Lord Bishop of Castres. Now in 1438 the Bishop of Castres was that elegant humanist, that zealous counsellor of the crown, who, in style truly Ciceronian, complained in his letters that so closely was he bound to his glebe, the court, that no time remained to him to visit his spouse.[2685] He was none other than that Gerard Machet, the King's confessor, who had, in 1429, along with the clerks at Poitiers, pleaded the authority of prophecy in favour of the Maid, in whom he found nought but sincerity and goodness.[2686] Maitre Thomas de Courcelles at Rouen had urged the Maid's being tortured and delivered to the secular arm.[2687] At the Bourges a.s.sembly the two churchmen agreed touching the supremacy of General Councils, the freedom of episcopal elections, the suppression of annates and the rights of the Gallican Church. At that moment it was not likely that either one or the other remembered the poor Maid. From the deliberations of this a.s.sembly, in which Maitre Thomas played an important part, there issued the solemn edict promulgated by the King on the 7th of July, 1438; the Pragmatic Sanction. By this edict the canons of Bale became the const.i.tution of the Church of France.[2688]

[Footnote 2685: Le P. Ayroles, _La Pucelle devant l'eglise de son temps_, p. 10.]

[Footnote 2686: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 565.]

[Footnote 2687: _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 403.]

[Footnote 2688: _Ordonnances_, vol. xiii, pp. 267, 291. _Preuves des libertes de l'eglise gallicane_, edited by Lenglet-Dufresnoy, second part, p. 6. De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. iii, pp.

353, 361. N. Arlos, _Histoire de la pragmatique sanction, etc._]

The Emperor also agreed to the reforms of Bale. So audacious did the Fathers become that they summoned Pope Eugenius to appear before their tribunal. When he refused to obey their summons, they deposed him, declaring him to be disobedient, obstinate, rebellious, a breaker of rules, a perturber of ecclesiastical unity, a perjurer, a schismatic, a hardened heretic, a squanderer of the treasures of the Church, scandalous, simoniacal, pernicious and d.a.m.nable.[2689] Such was the condemnation of the Holy Fathers p.r.o.nounced among other doctors by Maitre Jean Beaupere, Maitre Thomas de Courcelles and Maitre Nicolas Loiseleur, who had all three so sternly reproached Jeanne with having refused to submit to the Pope.[2690] Maitre Nicolas had been extremely energetic throughout the Maid's trial, playing alternately the parts of the Lorraine prisoner and Saint Catherine; when she was led to the stake he had run after her like a madman.[2691] This same Maitre Nicolas now displayed great activity in the Council wherein he attained to some eminence. He upheld the view that the General Council canonically convoked, was superior to the Pope and in a position to depose him. And albeit this canon was a mere master of arts, he made such an impression on the Fathers at Bale that in 1439, they despatched him to act as juris-consult at the Diet of Mainz. Meanwhile his att.i.tude was strongly displeasing to the chapter which had sent him as deputy to the Council. The canons of Rouen sided with the Sovereign Pontiff and against the Fathers, on this point joining issue with the University of Paris. They disowned their delegate and sent to recall him on the 28th of July, 1438.[2692]

[Footnote 2689: Hefele, _Histoire de l'eglise gallicane_, vol. xx, p.

357. De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. iii, p. 363. De Beaurepaire, _Les etats de Normandie sous la domination anglaise_, pp.

66, 67, 185, 188.]

[Footnote 2690: Du Boulay, _Hist. Universitatis_, vol. v, p. 431. De Beaurepaire, _Notes sur les juges_, p. 28.]

[Footnote 2691: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 10, 12, 332, 362; vol. iii, pp.

60, 133, 141, 145, 156, 162, 173, 181.]

[Footnote 2692: De Beaurepaire, _Notes sur les juges et a.s.sesseurs du proces de cond.a.m.nation_, pp. 78, 82.]

Maitre Thomas de Courcelles, one of those who had declared the Pope disobedient, obstinate, rebellious and the rest, was nominated one of the commissioners to preside over the election of a new pope, and, like Loiseleur, a delegate to the Diet of Mainz. But, unlike Loiseleur, he was not disowned by those who had appointed him, for he was the deputy of the University of Paris who recognised the Pope of the Council, Felix, to be the true Father of the Faithful.[2693] In the a.s.sembly of the French clergy held at Bourges in the August of 1440, Maitre Thomas spoke in the name of the Fathers of Bale. He discoursed for two hours to the complete satisfaction of the King.[2694] Charles VII, while remaining loyal to Pope Eugenius, maintained the Pragmatic Sanction. Maitre Thomas de Courcelles was henceforth one of the pillars of the French Church.

[Footnote 2693: J. Quicherat, _Apercus nouveaux_, p. 106.]

[Footnote 2694: De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. iii, p.

372.]

Meanwhile the English government had declared for the Pope and against the Council.[2695] My Lord Pierre Cauchon, who had become Bishop of Lisieux, was Henry VI's amba.s.sador at the Council. And at Bale a somewhat unpleasant experience befell him. By reason of his translation to the see of Lisieux he owed Rome annates to the amount of 400 golden florins. In Germany he was informed by the Pope's Treasurer that by his failure to pay this sum, despite the long delays granted to him, he had incurred excommunication, and that being excommunicate, by presuming to celebrate divine service he had committed irregularity.[2696] Such accusations must have caused him considerable annoyance. But after all, such occurrences were frequent and of no great consequence. On churchmen these thunderbolts fell but lightly, doing them no great hurt.

[Footnote 2695: De Beaurepaire, _Les etats de Normandie sous la domination anglaise_, pp. 66, 67, 185, 188. De Beaucourt, _loc. cit._ p. 362.]

[Footnote 2696: De Beaurepaire, _loc. cit._, p. 17. _Notes sur les juges et a.s.sesseurs du proces de cond.a.m.nation_, p. 117. _Recherches sur le proces_, p. 124.]

From 1444, the realm of France, disembarra.s.sed alike of adversaries and of defenders, was free to labour, to work at various trades, to engage in commerce and to grow rich. In the intervals between wars and during truces, King Charles's government, by the interchange of natural products and of merchandise, also, we may add, by the abolition of tolls and dues on the Rivers Seine, Oise, and Loire, effected the actual conquest of Normandy. Thus, when the time for nominal conquest came, the French had only to take possession of the province. So easy had this become, that in the rapid campaign of 1449,[2697] even the Constable was not beaten, neither was the Duke of Alencon. In his royal and peaceful manner Charles VII resumed possession of his town of Rouen, just as twenty years before he had taken Troyes and Reims, as the result of an understanding with the townsfolk and in return for an amnesty and the grant of rights and privileges to the burghers. He entered the city on Monday, the 10th of November, 1449.

[Footnote 2697: De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. v, ch.

i.]

The French government felt itself strong enough even to attempt the reconquest of that essentially English province, Aquitaine. In 1451, my Lord the b.a.s.t.a.r.d, now Count of Dunois, took possession of the fortress of Blaye. Bordeaux and Bayonne surrendered in the same year.

In the following manner did the Lord Bishop of Le Mans celebrate these conquests, worthy of the majesty of the most Christian King.

"Maine, Normandy, Aquitaine, these goodly provinces have returned to their allegiance to the King. Almost without the shedding of French blood hath this been accomplished. It hath not been necessary to overthrow the ramparts of many strongly walled towns, or to demolish their fortifications or for the inhabitants to suffer either pillage or murder."[2698]

[Footnote 2698: Lanery d'Arc, _Memoires et consultations en faveur de Jeanne d'Arc_, p. 249.]

Indeed Normandy and Maine were quite content at being French once more. The town of Bordeaux was alone in regretting the English, whose departure spelt its ruin. It revolted in 1452; and then after considerable difficulty was reconquered once and for all.

King Charles, henceforth rich and victorious, now desired to efface the stain inflicted on his reputation by the sentence of 1431. He wanted to prove to the whole world that it was no witch who had conducted him to his coronation. He was now eager to appeal against the condemnation of the Maid. But this condemnation had been p.r.o.nounced by the church, and the Pope alone could order it to be cancelled. The King hoped to bring the Pope to do this, although he knew it would not be easy. In the March of 1450, he proceeded to a preliminary inquiry;[2699] and matters remained in that position until the arrival in France of Cardinal d'Estouteville, the legate of the Holy See. Pope Nicolas had sent him to negotiate with the King of France a peace with England and a crusade against the Turks. Cardinal d'Estouteville, who belonged to a Norman family, was just the man to discover the weak points in Jeanne's trial. In order to curry favour with Charles, he, as legate, set on foot a new inquiry at Rouen, with the a.s.sistance of Jean Brehal, of the order of preaching friars, the Inquisitor of the Faith in the kingdom of France. But the Pope did not approve of the legate's intervention;[2700] and for three years the revision was not proceeded with. Nicolas V would not allow it to be thought that the sacred tribunal of the most holy Inquisition was fallible and had even once p.r.o.nounced an unjust sentence. And there existed at Rome a stronger reason for not interfering with the trial of 1431: the French demanded revision; the English were opposed to it; and the Pope did not wish to annoy the English, for they were then just as good and even better Catholics than the French.[2701]

[Footnote 2699: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 1, 22.]

[Footnote 2700: _Gallia Christiana_, vol. iii, col. 1129 and vol. xi, col. 90. De Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII_, vol. v, p. 219. Le P. Ayroles, _La Pucelle devant l'eglise de son temps_, ch. vi.]

[Footnote 2701: De Beaurepaire, _Les etats de Normandie sous la domination anglaise_, pp. 185, 188.]

In order to relieve the Pope from embarra.s.sment and set him at his ease, the government of Charles VII invented an expedient: the King was not to appear in the suit; his place was to be taken by the family of the Maid. Jeanne's mother, Isabelle Romee de Vouthon, who lived in retirement at Orleans,[2702] and her two sons, Pierre and Jean du Lys, demanded the revision.[2703] By this legal artifice the case was converted from a political into a private suit. At this juncture Nicolas V died, on the 24th of March, 1455. His successor, Calixtus III, a Borgia, an old man of seventy-eight, by a rescript dated the 11th of June, 1455, authorised the inst.i.tution of proceedings. To this end he appointed Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, Archbishop of Reims, Guillaume Chartier, Bishop of Paris, and Richard Olivier, Bishop of Coutances, who were to act conjointly with the Grand Inquisitor of France.[2704]

[Footnote 2702: _Trial_, vol. v, p. 276.]

[Footnote 2703: _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 108, 112.]

[Footnote 2704: _Ibid._, p. 95. Le P. Ayroles, _La Pucelle devant l'eglise de son temps_, p. 607. J. Belon and F. Balme, _Jean Brehal, grand inquisiteur de France et la rehabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc_, Paris, 1893, in 4to.]

From the first it was agreed that certain of those concerned in the original trial were not now to be involved, "for they had been deceived." Notably it was admitted that the Daughter of Kings, the Mother of Learning, the University of Paris, had been led into error by a fraudulent indictment consisting of twelve articles. It was agreed that the whole responsibility should be thrown on to the Bishop of Beauvais and the Promoter, Guillaume d'Estivet, who were both deceased. The precaution was necessary. Had it not been taken, certain doctors very influential with the King and very dear to the Church of France would have been greatly embarra.s.sed.

On the 7th of November, 1455, Isabelle Romee and her two sons, followed by a long procession of innumerable ecclesiasties, laymen, and worthy women, approached the church of Notre Dame in Paris to demand justice from the prelates and papal commissioners.[2705]

[Footnote 2705: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 82, 92.]

Informers and accusers in the trial of the late Jeanne were summoned to appear at Rouen on the 12th of December. Not one came.[2706] The heirs of the late Messire Pierre Cauchon declined all liability for the deeds of their deceased kinsman, and touching the civil responsibility, they pleaded the amnesty granted by the King on the reconquest of Normandy.[2707] As had been expected, the proceedings went forward without any obstacle or even any discussion.

[Footnote 2706: _Ibid._, pp. 92, 112.]

[Footnote 2707: _Ibid._, pp. 193, 196.]