deceitfully extracted, and as contrary even to the Confessions of the
Accused, we break, annihilate, and annul; and, after they shall have
been detached from the Process we ordain, by this present judgment, that
they be torn up:
In the second place, after having examined with great care the other
parts of the same said Process—particularly the two sentences which the
Process contained, designated by the Judges as “Lapse” and “Relapse”—and
after having also for a long time weighed the qualifications of the
Judges and of all those under whom and in whose keeping the said Jeanne
was detained:
We say, pronounce, decree, and declare, the said Processes and Sentences
full of cozenage, iniquity, inconsequences, and manifest errors, in fact
as well as in law; We say that they have been, are, and shall be—as well
as the aforesaid Abjuration, their execution, and all that
followed—null, non-existent, without value or effect.
Nevertheless, in so far as is necessary, and as reason doth command us,
we break them, annihilate them, annul them, and declare them void of
effect; and we declare that the said Jeanne and her relatives,
Plaintiffs in the actual Process, have not, on account of the said
Trial, contracted nor incurred any mark or stigma of infamy; we declare
them quit and purged of all the consequences of these same Processes; we
declare them, in so far as is necessary, entirely purged thereof by this
present:
We ordain that the execution and solemn publication of our present
Sentence shall take place immediately in this city, in two different
places, to wit,
To-day in the Square of Saint Ouen, after a General Procession and a
public Sermon:
To-morrow, at the Old Market-Place, in the same place where the said
Jeanne was suffocated by a cruel and horrible fire, also with a General
Preaching and with the placing of a handsome cross for the perpetual
memory of the Deceased and for her salvation and that of other deceased
persons:
We declare that we reserve to ourselves [the power] later on to execute,
publish, and for the honour of her memory to signify with acclaim, our
said sentence in the cities and other well-known places of the kingdom
wherever we shall find it well [so to do], under the reserves, finally,
of all other formalities which may yet remain to be done.
* * * * *
This present Sentence hath been brought out, read and promulgated by the
Lords Judges, in presence of the Reverend Father in Christ the Lord
Bishop of Démétriade, of Hector de Coquerel, Nicolas du Boys, Alain
Olivier, Jean du Bec, Jean de Gouys, Guillaume Roussel, Laurent Surreau,
Canons; of Martin Ladvenu, Jean Roussel, and Thomas de Fanouillères.
Maître Simon Chapitault, Promoter; Jean d’Arc and Prevosteau for the
other Plaintiffs.
Done at Rouen in the Archiepiscopal Palace, in the year of our Lord
1456, the 7th day of the month of June.
[Illustration:
THE HÔTEL DE VILLE: COMPIÈGNE.
]
-----
Footnote 105:
‘Old style’ is adopted throughout: thus 1449 is given instead of
1449/1450.
Footnote 106:
The word is given in English in the text. Cauchon prided himself on
his knowledge of this language.
Footnote 107:
Jean de Saint Avit, formerly Abbot of Saint-Denis, and, about 1390,
Bishop of Avranches. In 1432, he was imprisoned at Rouen, on suspicion
of complicity with the French, who wished to get possession of the
town.
Footnote 108:
“_Doyen de la Rote_”—Court of Appeals at Rome.
Footnote 109:
On the _Minute_ of Manchon, which was in the hands of the Judges of
the Rehabilitation in 1455.
Footnote 110:
This was the Examination called the _Acta Posterius_, which, though
included by Cauchon in the Process, is not signed by the Official
Registrars, Manchon, Boisguillaume, and Taquel.
Footnote 111:
Jeanne was burnt in the Market Place at Rouen, where an inscribed
stone marks the site. It is stated that the execution took place in
front of the Church of St. Sauveur, and facing the principal street
which leads to the Market Place, thus accommodating a larger number of
spectators than was possible in any other part of the Place.
There is still some dispute as to the actual spot; but as the Cemetery
was religious ground and the execution was, nominally at least, a
secular one, the ground chosen must have been on land belonging to the
municipality of Rouen. Probably this was in the Marché aux Veaux, as
we find an order for the burning of a heretic there in 1522, “_lieu
accoutumé faire telles exécutions_.”
Footnote 112:
Cognomen given to the Promoter, d’Estivet.
Footnote 113:
At the beginning of the Trial, Jeanne had asked for Counsel, and it
had been refused.
Footnote 114:
There were three keys to the prison, one being in the possession of
the Promoter, one of the Inquisitor, and one belonging to the
Cardinal.
Footnote 115:
May 28th.
Footnote 116:
To the Schismatic Council, then being held at Basle.
Footnote 117:
Articles for Examination of Witnesses in the Second Enquiry of 1452
were prepared under the direction of Cardinal d’Estouteville and
Brother Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor. The witnesses were examined on twelve
questions. Articles were also prepared under the direction of Philippe
de Rose, Delegate for Cardinal d’Estouteville, the witnesses being
examined on twenty-seven questions.
Footnote 118:
_Note by Quicherat_: This is an error of the witness. [The Promoter
was d’Estivet.]
Footnote 119:
Jeanne’s father went also to Rheims for the coronation. There still
exists in the old accounts of the town an item for his expenses at the
inn; and, in the Compte of the Treasurer Raguier there is also an
entry of 60 livres tournois, paid Jeanne to give to her father. On the
day after the coronation, Jeanne obtained from the King an exemption
from taxes for the village of Domremy and Greux: this document, dated
July 31st, 1429, still exists in the Archives of France. This
exemption from taxes has now lapsed.
Footnote 120:
Durand Laxart, her uncle.
Footnote 121:
This is also called the “Fontaine aux Groseilliers”; the Latin name is
probably intended for Rhamnus, the Buckthorn.
Footnote 122:
Mid-Lent Sunday, the 4th Sunday in Lent; so-called, because the
introit for the day begins, “_Laetare Jerusalem_,” &c.
Footnote 123:
“_Ad cameram regis._”
Footnote 124:
Margaret, daughter of James I. of Scotland, who was betrothed to
Louis, afterwards Louis XI.
Footnote 125:
February 13th, 1428.
Footnote 126:
1455.
Footnote 127:
March 6th, 1428.
Footnote 128:
June 23rd, 1428.
Footnote 129:
July 17th, 1429.
Footnote 130:
Near Vaucouleurs.
Footnote 131:
This covers the period of several visits, made between May 1428, and
February 1429.
Footnote 132:
The mother of Charles VII., who denied the legitimacy of her own son,
being Burgundian at heart, and ratified the iniquitous Treaty of
Troyes, so disastrous for France.
Footnote 133:
In the text Vaucouleurs is an obvious misprint for Saint-Nicolas.
Footnote 134:
He also gave her a horse; _cf._ previous depositions.
Footnote 135:
Saint-Nicolas-du-Port—then a celebrated centre of pilgrimage—near
Nancy. As both Poulengey and Laxart connect this pilgrimage with her
visit to the Duke de Lorraine, whose residence was at Nancy, it is
clear that Saint-Nicolas-du-Port is meant, and not the Chapel of St.
Nicolas near Vaucouleurs.
Footnote 136:
The village of Domremy, although in the territory of Lorraine,
belonged to France, not to Lorraine; for administrative purposes it
was a dependance of Champagne.
Footnote 137:
May 13th, 1428.
Footnote 138:
See Deposition of Jean Morel.
Footnote 139:
This Chapel in the crypt may still be seen at Vaucouleurs.
Footnote 140:
Jean, a natural son of Louis, Duke d’Orléans, was brought up with the
family of Orleans, and acknowledged by Valentine, the widowed Duchess,
after the murder of his father in 1407. At 25 years of age, in company
with de Gaucourt, he defeated the English under Warwick at Montargis
in 1427, and afterwards defended Orleans till its relief in 1429. He
was created Count de Dunois, in 1439.
Footnote 141:
Then Captain of Blois.
Footnote 142:
Regnault de Chartres.
Footnote 143:
Gilles de Laval, Seigneur de Rais, notorious for the horrible excesses
which brought him to the scaffold in 1440.
Footnote 144:
The Duke was then a prisoner in England.
Footnote 145:
7th of May.
Footnote 146:
Antiquarians state that the Café le Bœuf at Orleans covers the ancient
“Boulevard” captured by Jeanne d’Arc. This redoubt adjoined the
“Tourelles” and was close to the bridge of Orleans. Many steps below
ground, and entered from the Café le Bœuf, is a room of carefully
constructed masonry, being the interior of a tower, with embrasures
for cannon, and iron rings to which cannons were attached.
Footnote 147:
_i.e._, William Glasdale, Bailly of Alençon. He was Captain of the
Fort of the Tourelles, called here the Bridge Tower.
Footnote 148:
Gerard Machet, according to the _Chronique de la Pucelle_; he was not
Bishop until after the death of Jeanne.
Footnote 149:
Robert le Maçon, Chancellor, in 1418, was harassed by the opposition
of the Burgundian faction and the favourites of the Dauphin. He
retired in 1421, and acted henceforward as a simple Councillor.
Footnote 150:
Jean Leguise, ennobled by Charles VII. for his share in the surrender
of the town.
Footnote 151:
William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, Grand Steward of the King of
England.
Footnote 152:
The prophecy of Merlin, as it appears in MS. 7301 of the Bibliothèque
Nationale, runs: “_Descendit virgo dorsum sagittari et flores
virgineos obscultabit_.”
Footnote 153:
Raoul, _not_ Jean, de Gaucourt, Grand Steward, born 1370. Fought, in
1394, under the banner of Jean de Nevers, afterwards Duke of Burgundy,
for Sigismund, King of Hungary, against Bajazet; and was knighted on
the field of Nicopolis, from which only himself, his leader, and
twenty-two other French nobles escaped. He defended Harfleur against
Henry V., in 1415, and was a prisoner for ten years, being one of
those specially named by Henry in his dying commands to Bedford as
prisoners “to be kept.” In 1425, he was ransomed for the sum of 20,000
gold crowns; in 1427, he aided Dunois at the victory of Montargis, and
afterwards in the defence of Orleans.
Footnote 154:
Quicherat thinks there is an error of copy here; that Bellier could
not have been Bailly of Troyes when that town was in the hands of the
English, nor could he at any time have combined so high an office with
the lieutenancy of Chinon.
Footnote 155:
Master of the Horse, Counsellor and Steward to the Court. He was made
prisoner in 1437, but ransomed from the English for 500 crowns. In
1459, he was sent by Charles VII. to Bordeaux, in order to settle a
dispute between the municipal authority and some English ships. He was
living in 1472, and in receipt of a pension from Louis XI.
Footnote 156:
In December, 1429.
Footnote 157:
7th May.
Footnote 158:
Seigneur de Bignon, whose father was distinguished at the siege of
Orleans. He was great-grandfather of Christopher de Thou, first
President of the Parliament of Paris.
Footnote 159:
Head of one of the principal families of Orleans. Amian de
Saint-Mesmin was ennobled in 1460, on account of his services. He died
at the ripe age of 118 years.
Footnote 160:
Brother-in-law to Louis de Contes, Jeanne’s page, and owner of the
lordships of la Chaussée and Miramion. From his younger brother,
Guillaume, descended the Beauharnais who was husband to Josephine and
father of Eugène.
Footnote 161:
Daughter of Jacques Bourchier, Treasurer of Orleans, at whose house
Jeanne lodged.
Footnote 162:
See decrees of Henry VI. against fugitives, “_terrificatos
incautionibus puellae_.”
Footnote 163:
Nevertheless, his name appears as having agreed with the Abbot of
Fécamp in his opinion of the Condemnation.
Footnote 164:
Not mentioned elsewhere.
Footnote 165:
Secretary to the King of England.
Footnote 166:
It is, however, stated that, on being consulted, he did advise the
extreme measure of putting Jeanne to the torture.
Footnote 167:
Louis de Contes was brother-in-law of Beauharnais, the Bourgeois of
Orleans. He was a son of Jean de Contes, Captain of Châteaudun, and
Chamberlain to the Duke d’Orléans.
Footnote 168:
Jacques Bouchier.
Footnote 169:
[“_Ha! sanglant garçon, vous ne me dyriez pas que le sanc de France
feust repandu!_”]
Footnote 170:
_Cœlestinorum_, in the text.
Footnote 171:
John de la Pole, Captain of Avranches, brother of the Earl of Suffolk.
Footnote 172:
Jeanne’s hatred of swearing is noticed by many of her followers, and
in her hearing they endeavoured to abstain from it. La Hire, whose
language was apparently the most violent, was permitted by her to
employ the mild expletive ‘Par mon martin,’ ‘By my baton,’ an
expression she herself is constantly reported to have used.
Footnote 173:
A nickname of Poulengey.
Footnote 174:
These three forts were on the left bank of the Loire; the fort of the
Tourelles, of the Augustins, and of Saint-Privé were further west.
Footnote 175:
A woman called “la gasque d’Avignon,” whose predictions made much stir
at the beginning of the fifteenth century.
Footnote 176:
The devoted Margaret of Bavaria, who was separated from him on account
of his evil life.
Footnote 177:
Jean, Duke d’Alençon, son of the Duke killed at Agincourt. He was of
the Blood Royal, descended from Philip II.
Footnote 178:
The Bishop referred to is Simon Bonnet, Bishop of Senlis at that time,
not the partisan of the English who occupied the seat in 1429.
Footnote 179:
Yolande, daughter of John I. of Aragon; wife of Louis XI., Duke of
Anjou, and titular King of Sicily. She was the mother of Mary, wife of
Charles VII., and grandmother of Margaret, afterwards wife of Henry
VI.
A receipt is recorded, in _Quicherat_ (III. 93), for the carriage of
corn, on her behalf, from Orleans to Blois.
Footnote 180:
A captain of some repute, exchanged for Talbot after the Battle of
Patay.
Footnote 181:
In the Accounts (formerly kept in the Chambre des Comtes at Paris), of
Maître Hemon Raguier, Treasurer of War, there is an item relating to
this suit of armour: “To the Master Armourer, for a complete harness
for the said Pucelle, 100 livres tournois.”
Footnote 182:
A street in Orleans is still called after d’Illiers, then Captain of
Châteaudun.
Footnote 183:
Jeanne, daughter of the Duke d’Orléans.
Footnote 184:
The Duke d’Alençon, at the age of eighteen, had been taken prisoner at
the battle of Verneuil, in 1424, and kept for five years in the Castle
of Crotoy, where Jeanne herself was afterwards imprisoned.
Footnote 185:
Head-covering without visor, “_chapeline casque léger en forme de
calotte sans masque_.”
Footnote 186:
Jargeau was taken on June 11th, 1429.
Footnote 187:
John Talbot, afterwards Earl of Shrewsbury. He was exchanged for
Ambroise de Loré and killed while attempting the relief of Châtillon,
then besieged by Dunois.
Footnote 188:
Arthur, Count de Richemont, Constable of France, brother of the Duke
of Britanny. He was one of the Princes of the Blood taken at
Agincourt, but was released on parole; and Henry V. dying soon after,
he claimed his freedom, saying he had given his word to the King
alone. He married a sister of the Duke of Burgundy and widow of the
late Dauphin. Although friendly to the French cause, he was distrusted
by Charles, and, at this time, was in disgrace. He was uncle to the
Duke d’Alençon, his sister Mary having married the preceding Duke. He
succeeded to the Duchy of Britanny in 1453, but died childless.
Footnote 189:
It was after this battle of Patay that Sir John Fastolf, one of the
English captains, was deprived of the Garter, for his conduct in
retreating before the French army.
Footnote 190:
Louis, Duke d’Orléans, taken prisoner at Agincourt, in 1415, was
imprisoned in England until the year 1440, when he was ransomed at the
price of 54,000 nobles (about £36,000), the negotiations being carried
out on the English side by Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais.
Footnote 191:
Of the Order of Hermit Friars of Saint Augustin, living at their
Convent in Tours in 1429, and at Bayeux in 1456.
Footnote 192:
There is some doubt as to the identity of this town. The text gives
“Aniciensis,” which would refer to Puy-en-Valais; but this, Quicherat
says, is unlikely, owing to the distance, and proposes to substitute
“Anceinsi,” _i.e._, Anche. Fabre, following Simon de Lune, is in
favour of the former reading, as the town was one noted for
pilgrimages; and, in the Lent of 1429, there was an unusual number of
pilgrims, in honour of the special feast of La Vierge Noire de Puy,
which, in that year, fell on Good Friday. This fact might account for
the presence of Jeanne’s mother at Puy, and of the men-at-arms, who
had escorted the Maid to Chinon.
Footnote 193:
Quicherat prefers to read, “brother.”
Footnote 194:
Probably the husband of the woman named Lapau, mentioned by Louis de
Contes.
Footnote 195:
Doubt had been thrown on the fact here stated, since Charles VII.’s
mother, Queen Isabeau, had denied her son’s legitimacy.
Footnote 196:
The account for this banner appears in the 13th Compte of Maître Hemon
Raguier, Treasurer of War: 25 liv. tour. were paid to “Hauves
Poulnois, painter, living at Tours, for painting and procuring
materials for a great standard, and a small one for the Maid.”
Footnote 197:
The siege was raised on the 8th of May.
Footnote 198:
Established on the site of a convent in the previous December.
Footnote 199:
The first letter was sent on March 22nd, 1429: of the second nothing
is known.
Footnote 200:
_i.e._, Glasdale.
Footnote 201:
8th May. The commemoration of the relief of Orleans was made a
national festival by Louis XI. and confirmed by Richelieu. This day is
still kept in the town with great rejoicings and religious
processions: it has been celebrated, excepting during the Revolution,
ever since the relief of the city.
Footnote 202:
Louis de Luxembourg.
Footnote 203:
“Godon,” or “goddam,” a common term for the English in the Middle Ages
and to the present day.
Footnote 204:
An error; the first sermon was by Érard.
Footnote 205:
Louis de Contes, called “Imerguet” and “Mugot” by his companions.
Footnote 206:
The phrase is left thus unfinished in all the MSS. It is quoted in the
Latin texts in the original French, as above.
Footnote 207:
The Court of the Bailiff.
Footnote 208:
“_Crimen læsæ majestatis._”
Footnote 209:
The examination of d’Aulon, who served Jeanne d’Arc as Steward, and
who, at the time of being examined, was Seneschal of Beaucaire, is the
only evidence preserved in the original French.
Footnote 210:
Guillaume d’Estouteville: Enquiry of 1452.
Footnote 211:
See Appendix: Note on Documents of Rehabilitation Enquiry: p. 332.
Footnote 212:
_Viz._, the Twelve Articles.
APPENDIX
NOTE ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PROCESS OF CONDEMNATION
1. _The Minute._
The original French notes of the Trial, taken down at the time by the
Registrars, formed the material on which the Authentic Document was
subsequently based. A part of this original MS. is still in existence in
the National Library at Paris, and is known as the ‘MS. D’Urfé.’ It
begins with March 3rd, the day of the last Public Examination, and is
apparently in the handwriting of Manchon, the Registrar, who had the
whole in his own possession at the time of the Trial of Rehabilitation.
The Fragment was discovered among the MSS. of the D’Urfé Library in the
reign of Louis XVI. by Laverdy.
2. _The Authentic Document._
This was the original Latin translation of the Minute, made by Thomas de
Courcelles, signed by the Registrars, and attested by the seals of the
two Judges. No trace of this first document can be found; but the Bishop
of Beauvais caused five complete and legally attested copies to be made,
three of these being in the writing of Manchon, the Registrar, of which
there are still in existence, (1) Copy made for the King of England, now
in the Library of the Corps Législatif in Paris; (2) Copy for the Bishop
of Beauvais, formerly in the Colbert Library; and (3) Copy for the
Inquisitor, formerly in the Dupuy Library—the last two being now in the
National Library at Paris. The two other copies are lost, one having
been sent to the Pope, whilst the other was the property of Manchon
himself.
Besides these Original Documents, there are also seven copies of the
Process, of different dates: five in the National Library, one in the
Vatican, and one at Geneva.
NOTE ON THE DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE TRIAL OF REHABILITATION
In the Preface to the Authentic Document of the Rehabilitation, the
Notaries, Denis Lecomte and François Ferrebouc, state that they have
prepared under their seals three copies of the Process of
Rehabilitation, one containing also the entire Process of the Trial of
Condemnation: this Copy is unfortunately lost. The two still in
existence, both in the National Library of Paris, contain only the text
of the Trial of 1455–6. In one of these Manuscripts are inserted the
Eight Memorials presented to the Holy See in favour of Jeanne.
The Second Manuscript contains only the Memorial of Gerson. Other
Documents connected with the Enquiries may be found in _Quicherat_, Vol.
II., and in Lanery d’Arc’s _Mémoires et Consultations en faveur de
Jeanne d’Arc_, the most important being the _Opinions_ of sundry learned
Doctors given in 1452, and the _Recollectio_ of Jean Bréhal in 1456.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE TRIAL
In order to understand more fully the course of events in the last year
of Jeanne’s life, it may be well to give in some detail the story of her
capture at Compiègne on May 23rd, 1430, and of the negotiations and
legal preliminaries which preceded the opening of the Case in the
following February. Strangely enough, there is in the Trial of
Rehabilitation absolutely no witness to this period. It may therefore be
more satisfactory to quote at some length from the contemporary
Chronicles, which, as regards the Capture itself, are fortunately very
explicit.
In the early dawn of Tuesday, May 23rd, Jeanne started from Crespy with
about 400 followers to reinforce the garrison of Compiègne, then
besieged by the combined forces of England and Burgundy. Of the events
of that day there is no better account than that given in the Chronicle
of Percival de Cagny,[213] which reads as follows:—
‘The 23rd day of the month of May, the Maid, being in the said place of
Crespy, learned that the Duke of Burgundy,[214] with a great number of
men-at-arms and others, and the Earl of Arundel, had come to besiege the
said town of Compiègne. About midnight she departed from the said place
of Crespy, in the company of 300 or 400 fighting men. And although her
followers said to her, that she had too few people with her to pass
through the army of the Burgundians and of the English, she exclaimed:
“By my staff! [_Par mon martin!_] we are enough; I am going to see my
good friends of Compiègne.”
‘She arrived at the said place about sunrise, and, without loss or
disturbance either to herself or to her followers, she entered the said
town. On the same day the Burgundians and English had come to make an
assault in the field before the said town. There were done many feats of
arms on the one side and on the other. The Burgundians and English,
knowing that the Maid was in the town, thought that those within would
sally forth in great strength, and for this the Burgundians placed a
strong ambush of their followers under cover of a lofty mountain near
by, named the Mount of Clairoy. And, about nine in the morning, the Maid
heard that the assault was hot and fierce in the field before the said
town. She armed herself and her followers, mounted on horseback, and
went to join the _mêlée_. And no sooner was she come than the enemy
turned back and were put to flight. The Maid charged hard upon the flank
of the Burgundians. Those in ambush gave warning to their followers, who
turned back in great disorder, and then, breaking up their ambuscade,
they spurred on to place themselves between the town-bridge and the Maid
and her company. And the one part of them turned right on the Maid in
such force that those of her company could not withstand them, and said
to the Maid, “Strive hard to regain the town, or you and we are lost.”
‘When the Maid heard them speak thus, she cried to them, angrily,
“Silence! It only depends on you to discomfit them. Think only of
striking them down.” But whatsoever she might say, these people would
not believe it, and forcibly compelled her to withdraw to the bridge.
And when the Burgundians and English saw that she was returning to the
town, they, by supreme effort, reached the end of the bridge. And great
feats of arms were done there. The captain of the place, seeing vast
multitudes of Burgundians and English about to cross the bridge, for the
fear that he had of the loss of the place, commanded the bridge of the
town to be raised and the gates closed. And there remained the Maid
hemmed in without, and few of her followers with her. When her enemies
saw this, all made effort to seize her. She resisted stoutly against
them, but in the end was taken by five or six acting together, some
laying hands on her, others on her horse, and each saying, “Surrender to
me and give parole.” She answered and said, “I have sworn and given my
parole to Another than you, and to Him will I give my oath.” And, saying
these words, she was taken to the lodging of Messire Jehan de
Luxembourg.
‘Messire Jehan de Luxembourg[215] had her kept in his lodging for three
or four days; and, after that, he remained at the siege of the said town
and had the Maid sent to a castle named Beaulieu, in Vermandois. And
there was she kept prisoner during the space of four months or
thereabouts. After this, the said de Luxembourg, by means of the Bishop
of Thérouanne,[216] his brother, and Chancellor of France for the
English King, delivered her to the Duke of Bedford, Lieutenant in France
for the King of England, his nephew, for the price of fifteen or sixteen
thousand _saluts_ [the _salut_ being worth about £1] paid to the said de
Luxembourg. Thus was the Maid put into the hands of the English and
taken to the Castle of Rouen, at which the said Duke then held his
residence. She being in prison in the said Castle of Beaulieu, he who
had been her steward[217] before her capture, and who served her in
prison, said to her, “That poor town of Compiègne, which you have so
much loved up to this time, will fall again into the hands and the power
of the enemies of France!”
‘And she answered him, “It will not be, for all the places which the
King of Heaven hath subdued and put into the hands and jurisdiction of
the gentle King Charles by my means, will not be retaken by his enemies,
so long as he will take pains to keep them.”’
The following additional details in regard to the Capture of the Maid
are taken from George Chatellain’s _Histoire de Philippe Le Bon_:—‘The
Maid, passing the nature of woman, did bear great weight, and took much
pains to preserve her company from loss, remaining in the rear as
becomes the chief and as the most valiant of the troop, when fortune did
so permit, for the ending of her glory and for the last time that ever
she should bear arms. An archer, a hard man and very churlish, having
great spite that a woman of whom he had heard so much talk should drive
back so many valiant men as she had done, caught her from one side by
her surcoat of cloth-of-gold, and dragged her from her horse to the
ground: she could find neither rescue nor help from her followers that
she might be remounted, notwithstanding the pains they took. But a
man-at-arms, named the Bastard de Wandonne,[218] who arrived just as she
fell, pressed her so closely that she gave him her parole, for that he
said he was a man of noble birth. The which man-at-arms, more joyful
than if he had gotten a king into his hands, took her hastily to
Marigny, and there kept her under guard till the end of the affair. And
there were taken also with her, Pouthon the Burgundian, a
gentleman-at-arms of the French party; the brother of the Maid; her
steward; and certain others, in small numbers, who were taken to Marigny
and held in safe keeping.’
On the same day, the Duke of Burgundy wrote the following letter to the
people of Saint Quentin:—
‘By order of the Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders, Artois, Burgundy,
and Namur.
‘Very dear and well-beloved, knowing that you desire to have news of us,
we signify to you that this day, the 23rd May, towards six o’clock in
the afternoon, the adversaries of our Lord the King [Henry VI.] and of
us, who were assembled together in great power, and entrenched in the
town of Compiègne, before which we and the men of our army were
quartered, have made a sally from the said town in force on the quarters
of our advanced guard nearest to them, in the which sally was she whom
they call the Maid, with many of their principal captains. In the
encounter with whom, our fair cousin, Messire Jehan de Luxembourg, who
was there present, and others of our people, and some of the people of
our Lord the King whom he had sent before us to pass over to Paris, made
great and bitter resistance. And presently we arrived in person and
found that the said adversaries were already driven back, and by the
pleasure of our blessed Creator, it had so happened and such grace had
been granted to us, that the said Maid had been taken; and with her many
captains, knights, squires and others were taken, drowned, and killed,
of whom to this hour we yet know not the names, only that none of our
followers nor the followers of my Lord the King are either killed or
taken, and that only twenty are wounded, thanks to God. The which
capture, as we certainly hold, will be great news everywhere; and by it
will be recognized the error and foolish belief of all those who have
shewn themselves well-disposed and favourable to the doings of the said
woman. And this thing we write for our news, hoping that in it you will
have joy, comfort, and consolation, and will render thanks and praise to
our Creator, Who seeth and knoweth all things, and Who by His blessed
pleasure will conduct the rest of our enterprizes to the good of our
said Lord the King and his kingdom, and to the relief and comfort of his
good and loyal subjects.
‘Very dear and well-beloved, the Holy Spirit have you in His Holy
Keeping.
‘Written at Codun, near Compiègne, the 23rd day of May. Subscribed: To
our very dear and good friends the Clergy, citizens and inhabitants of
Saint Quentin, in Vermandois.’
In the Notes of Clement de Fauquembergue, Registrar of the Parliament of
Paris, occurs the following passage:—‘Thursday, the 25th day of May,
1430, Messire Louis de Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, Chancellor of
France, received letters from Messire Jean de Luxembourg, Knight, his
brother, making mention, among other things, that on Tuesday last, in a
sally made by the captains and men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois,
then in the town of Compiègne, against the people of the Duke of
Burgundy, encamped and come against the said town with the intention of
besieging it, the people of the said De Valois were in such manner
compelled to retreat that many of them had no time to enter again into
the said town. And many of them threw themselves into the river adjacent
to the walls, to the peril of their lives; others remained prisoners of
the said Messire Jean de Luxembourg, and the followers of the said Duke
of Burgundy, who, among others, seized and held prisoner this woman whom
the followers of the said Messire Charles called the Maid.’[219]
The news of the Maid’s capture was received in Paris with much
rejoicing,[220] and _Te Deums_ were ordered to be sung in the Churches.
The University and the Inquisition at once took up the matter, and wrote
on the following day, May 26th, to the Duke of Burgundy, requesting him
to claim the prisoner as a heretic against the Church. Six weeks later,
on July 14th, letters were sent from the University both to the Duke and
to Jean de Luxembourg to the same effect. On the same day, Cauchon,
Bishop of Beauvais, acting for the Regent Bedford, arrived at the
Burgundian camp to negotiate for the purchase of the Maid. He claimed
her as a prisoner of the Church, but nevertheless offered the usual
ransom of a king, 10,000 livres tournois [about £16,000 of our present
value].
The arrangements presented, however, matters of long deliberation. The
Duke and Jean de Luxembourg, whether from scruples of conscience or in
hope of still higher ransom from the party of the King of France, were
in no hurry to part with their prisoner. She had been removed to the
Castle of Beaulieu at the end of May; and here she remained until
August, with her faithful follower d’Aulon still in attendance on her.
No records remain of her sojourn; but she herself gives evidence at the
Trial of her attempt to escape, which was all but successful. Early in
August, she was sent to Beaurevoir, where for a time she had the society
of the wife and the aunt of Jean de Luxembourg. Of the latter, the
Countess de Ligny, she spoke at the Trial in terms of great affection.
Whilst at Beaurevoir, she heard of the negotiations for her delivery to
the English. In despair for herself, and overwhelmed with grief for the
sorrows of her beloved friends of Compiègne, who were then in great
straits, she threw herself[221] from the top of the Keep, a height of
sixty feet, hoping, as she afterwards said, at least to escape from her
enemies. She was taken up, stunned, but not severely injured by her
fall, and was kept in closer ward until, in the middle of November, the
arrangements for her purchase were completed. From Beaurevoir she was
removed to Arras; thence to Crotoy, where she was handed over to the
tender mercies of the English, who kept her, in comparatively easy
confinement, until it should be decided where the Trial was to take
place—the University claiming her for Paris, the Regent preferring to
keep her more strictly within his own power. In December, a decision was
arrived at. Rouen was fixed upon as the most suitable place, both as a
stronghold of the English and as the residence of the Regent and the
Court. To Rouen, accordingly, the Maid was brought, and there lodged in
a tower of the Castle, under the guard of English soldiers.
The room in which she was confined was situated in a tower of the Castle
of Rouen, now no longer in existence; it was on the first floor, up
eight steps;[222] not far from the back entrance,[223] and facing the
fields.[224] There were three keys to the prison: one retained by the
Cardinal of England or his Secretary, one kept by the Inquisitor, and
one by the Promoter.[225] The Maid was under the close surveillance of
five common soldiers (_houcepailliers_), three of whom remained in the
room day and night, while two guarded the door.[226] She was heavily
ironed, and chained to a beam which crossed the end of her bed.[227] It
is reported also that a cage, in which she could stand upright had been
made for her; but, although this is mentioned by several persons, no one
can remember to have seen it in use. The Castle being under the control
of the Governor, the Earl of Warwick, the captive was officially in his
hands; and for this reason the guardians appointed later to see to her
safe custody were members of his household or of the Royal Bodyguard:
John Gris or Grey, Talbot, and Berwoist, whose commission is made out by
the authority of the Bishop on March 13th.
Many of the Assessors considered that Jeanne should have been placed in
the prisons of the Church, and not left in the hands of the English.
Lefevre remarks that no one dared say this; and De Courcelles states
that it was never brought up as a matter for consultation, although
Ladvenu refers to a discussion at the first Session, during which, in
response to a generally expressed opinion that Jeanne should be placed
under Ecclesiastical ward, the Bishop announced that this could not be
done “for fear of the English.” At this first Session, February 21st,
neither Ladvenu nor De Courcelles was present.
The Trial opened, according to the Official Report, on January the 9th.
It was based on the Procedure of the trials of the Holy Office; and,
although the Inquisitor himself was not _officially_ present until a
month later, the Inquisitorial form was punctiliously observed. This
form was as follows:—
1. _Process ex officio._
Enquiry as to facts of accusation.
Examination of the Accused on the results of this enquiry.
The Promoter then draws up the case, if any be undertaken.
2. _Process in ordinary._
Trial and examination of the Accused, sometimes by torture.
Sentence.
This Procedure was carefully observed in the case of Jeanne. The process
_ex officio_, beginning in January, with the suppressed Domremy Enquiry,
comprised the Six Public and Nine Private Examinations, and ended with
the drawing up of the Seventy Articles, the Act of Accusation, on March
26th. The Process in Ordinary began on March 27th, with the reading of
the Seventy Articles and Jeanne’s examination upon them. She was brought
into the Torture Chamber on May the 9th; but the decision of the greater
number of the Assessors being against the use of extreme measures,
nothing was done. The Sentence was read on May 24th, condemning her to
perpetual imprisonment.
Of the legality of the Trial there were grave doubts, expressed both at
the beginning and also later on, when some opportunity had been given by
the Public Examinations for those not absolutely prejudiced against the
Accused, to form an opinion as regards the impartiality of the Judges.
On the first day, Houppeville, whose testimony was given in full at the
Rehabilitation, was present in Court; but, having dared to express his
opinion that the action to be undertaken was fraught with some danger,
he was afterwards refused admission, and was sent for by the Bishop to
be reprimanded. As he was not in the Diocese of Beauvais he refused
submission; but his appeal to his own Chapter at Rouen was disregarded,
and he was thrown into prison, from which he was only released some days
later through the intervention of the Abbot of Jumièges.
Lohier, a celebrated legal authority, who was present in Rouen during
the earlier part of the Examination, expressed his opinions to the
Bishop at some length, stating that the whole Trial was absolutely
worthless: (1) on account of its form, (2) that the Assessors were not
at liberty to hold their own views, the Trial being in the Castle and
therefore not in open Court, (3) that no opportunity was given to the
party of the French King to speak for themselves, (4) that Jeanne
herself was allowed no Counsel,[228] nor had proper documents been
prepared to support the Accusation. The Bishop, furious at this
interference, summoned a meeting at his house to discuss the matter, and
announced his decision to take no notice of the opinions thus expressed,
but to continue as before. On the following day, Lohier left Rouen,
remarking to the Registrar of the Trial: “It seems to me they act more
from hate than aught else: and for this reason I will not stay here, for
I do not wish to be in it.”
Massieu, the Usher of the Court, afterwards stated that Jeanne had asked
for Counsel, and had been refused; but there is no reference to any such
request in the message he gives from her at the time of her
citation.[229]
The Bishop’s violent resentment at any interference is noted by more
than one witness; and, indeed, the whole conduct of the Trial may be not
inaptly described in the words of one of the Assessors, Maître Grouchet:
“all was violence in this affair.”
The Trial itself was held in the Castle of Rouen, where Henry VI. had
just been spending Christmas in state.
At the First Session, in the Castle Chapel, the noise and disturbance
were so great that it was decided that future Sessions should be held in
a smaller room, and from this time the Court met in the Ornament Room,
opening from the Great Hall. Two Englishmen kept the door.[230]
The Meetings of May 19th and May 29th, preliminary to the closing of the
First and Second Processes, respectively were held outside the Castle in
the Chapel of the Archiepiscopal Manor, possibly with a view to giving
an air of greater publicity to the proceedings. The room in which the
instruments of torture were exhibited to Jeanne is on the ground-floor
of the only part of the old Castle now standing, called the Great Tower.
The smaller tower, in which Jeanne’s prison was situated, was still in
ruins until the beginning of the present century, and went by the name
of the Tower of La Pucelle; but it has now entirely disappeared.
The three Registrars, Manchon, Boisguillaume, and Taquel (the last only
after March 14th), were seated at the feet of the Judges. The clerks of
Beaupère and Erard, Jean de Monnet and Jean de Lenozelles, were
sometimes with them; two English clerks, under the direction of
Loyseleur, were hidden behind a curtain.[231]
Jeanne was seated on a chair, and questioned, generally from 8 to 11
a.m., by the Bishop and the six University Delegates. Sometimes they all
spoke together, insomuch that Jeanne protested: “Beaux Seigneurs, faites
l’un après l’autre.”[232]
In the evidence given at the Rehabilitation, we learn that on more than
one occasion Jeanne received advice from friendly Assessors, notably
from Brother Duval and Brother Ysambard de la Pierre; but their
well-meant interference seems only to have further incensed her Judges
against her, and occasionally produced a violent altercation.
On the other hand, Jeanne was cruelly misled by Nicolas Loyseleur, one
of the Canons of Rouen, who disguised himself as a fellow-countryman of
the Marches of Lorraine, and, by false messages from her friends, wormed
himself into the confidence of the Maid, even inducing her to allow him
to act as her Confessor: nor did he scruple to report any admission she
might make to the Bishop and the Inquisitor. The Registrars, Manchon and
Boisguillaume, were even required by Cauchon to place themselves in a
room adjoining the prison, provided with a so-called “Judas” ear, in
order that they might take notes of the conversation between the
prisoner and Loyseleur: but this, to their everlasting honour, they
refused to do.
The Registrars appear to have had their difficulties from the very
beginning. The notes taken by them at the morning sittings were read
over in the presence of some of the Assessors at the Bishop’s lodgings
in the afternoon, and compared with those made by the concealed English
clerks. Differences of opinion arose very often; but the officials
refused to allow their own notes to be overridden, and, whenever any
disputed point was referred to the Accused, their version was always
found to be correct. These notes were finally drawn up by Manchon in a
complete form, and upon them is based the whole account of the Trial as
it appears in the Latin translation, the subsequent work of Thomas de
Courcelles.
ACT OF ACCUSATION PREPARED BY THE PROMOTER
The Seventy Articles
[The Seventy Articles, prepared by the Promoter, d’Estivet, which
form the Accusation of the Trial in Ordinary, were read to Jeanne
by Thomas de Courcelles, on Tuesday, March 27th. In her replies,
here given, Jeanne refers constantly to previous answers. The
dates of Examinations, in which these are said to occur, follow in
notes.]
ARTICLE I. And first, according to Divine Law, as according to Canon and
Civil Law, it is to you, the Bishop, as Judge Ordinary, and to you, the
Deputy, as Inquisitor of the Faith, that it appertaineth to drive away,
destroy, and cut out from the roots in your Diocese and in all the
kingdom of France, heresies, witchcrafts, superstitions, and other
crimes of that nature; it is to you that it appertaineth to punish, to
correct and to amend heretics and all those who publish, say, profess,
or in any other manner act against our Catholic Faith: to wit,
sorcerers, diviners, invokers of demons, those who think ill of the
Faith, all criminals of this kind, their abettors and accomplices,
apprehended in your Diocese or in your jurisdiction, not only for the
misdeeds they may have committed there, but even for the part of their
misdeeds that they may have committed elsewhere, saving, in this
respect, the power and duty of the other Judges competent to pursue them
in their respective dioceses, limits, and jurisdictions. And your power
as to this exists against all lay persons, whatever be their estate,
sex, quality, and pre-eminence: in regard to all you are competent
Judges.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I believe surely that our Lord the Pope of Rome, the Bishops, and other
Clergy, are established to guard the Christian Faith and punish those
who are found wanting therein: but as for me, for my doings I submit
myself only to the Heavenly Church—that is to say, to God, to the Virgin
Mary, and to the Saints in Paradise. I firmly believe I have not wavered
in the Christian Faith, nor would I waver.”
ARTICLE II. The Accused, not only this year, but from her infancy, and
not only in your Diocese, Bishop, and your jurisdiction, Deputy, but
also in many other places of this kingdom, hath done, composed,
contrived and ordained a number of sacrileges and superstitions: she
made herself a diviner; she caused herself to be adored and venerated;
she hath invoked demons, and evil spirits; consulted them, associated
with them, hath made and had with them compacts, treaties, and
conventions, hath made use of them, hath furnished to others, acting in
the same manner, aid, succour, and favour, and hath, in much, led them
on to act like herself; she hath said, affirmed, and maintained that to
act thus, to use witchcraft, divinations, superstitions, was not a sin,
was not a forbidden thing, but, on the contrary, a thing lawful, to be
praised, worthy of approval; also she hath led into these errors and
evil doings a very great number of persons of divers estates, of both
sexes, and hath imprinted on their hearts the most fatal errors. Jeanne
hath been taken and arrested within the limits of your diocese of
Beauvais, in the very act (_flagrante delicto_) of perpetrating all
these misdoings.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I deny ever having used witchcraft, superstitious works, or
divinations. As to allowing myself to be adored, if any kissed my hands
and my garments, it was not my doing or by my wish; I sought to protect
myself from it, and to prevent it as much as in me lay. And as for the
rest of the Article, I deny it.”
ARTICLE III. The Accused hath fallen into many diverse and detestable
errors which reek of heresy. She hath said, vociferated, uttered,
published and inculcated within the hearts of the simple, false and
lying propositions allied to heresy, even themselves heretical, contrary
to our Catholic Faith and its principles, to Gospel rules, and to the
Statutes established or approved by General Councils; propositions,
contrary not only to the Divine Law but also to Canon and Civil Law;
propositions scandalous, sacrilegious, contrary to good manners,
offensive to pious ears: she hath furnished help, counsel and favour to
the people who dogmatized, affirmed, or promulgated such propositions.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I deny it, and on the contrary affirm that I have always upheld the
Church so far as it lay in my power.”
ARTICLE IV. But it is time to instruct you more fully and more directly,
my Lords and Judges, on the offences, excesses, crimes, and
misdemeanours, committed by the Accused in the diocese of Beauvais and
elsewhere, in many and divers places.
It is true that the Accused was born in the village of Grus [Greux], of
Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle, his wife; that she lived until seventeen
years old or thereabouts in the village of Domremy, on the Meuse, in the
diocese of Toul, in the Bailly of Chaumont, in Bassigny, in the provosty
of Montclère and Andelot. In her childhood, she was not instructed in
the beliefs and principles of our Faith; but by certain old women she
was initiated in the science of witchcraft, divination, superstitious
doings, and magical arts. Many inhabitants of these villages have been
known for all time as using these kinds of witchcraft: Jeanne hath
herself said that she learned from several, notably from her godmother,
many things touching her visions and the apparitions of fairies; through
others also, she hath been penetrated by the detestable and pernicious
errors of these evil spirits—so much so, that, in these interrogations
before you, she hath confessed that even now she doth not know if these
fairies were evil spirits or not.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“For the first part it is true, in so far as concerns my father, my
mother, and the place of my birth. As to the fairies, I do not know what
they are. On what touches my teaching, I learnt to believe, and have
been brought up well and duly to do what a good child ought to do. For
what concerns my godmother, I refer to what I have said on another
occasion. You ask me to say the Creed? Ask my confessor, to whom I said
it.”
ARTICLE V. Near the village of Domremy there is a great tree, big and
ancient; it is called “the Charmed Tree of the Fairy of Bourlement”:
near by is a spring; round this tree and this spring live, it is said,
evil spirits called fairies, with whom those who use witchcraft are
accustomed to come and dance at night.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“For the tree and the spring, I refer to my previous answers. The rest,
I deny.”[233]
ARTICLE VI. Accustomed to frequent this tree and this spring, above all
by night, sometimes also by day, but at the times when the Church
celebrates the Divine Office, Jeanne, in order to find herself more
alone, danced roundelays around this tree and this spring; from time to
time she hung from its branches garlands of herbs and flowers woven by
her own hands, accompanying her dances with songs mingled with
invocations, sorceries, and other witchcrafts: the garlands thus left
overnight on the following morning were not to be found.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer for a part to my previous answers; the rest I deny.”[234]
ARTICLE VII. Jeanne was in the habit of carrying about with her a
mandrake, hoping thereby to secure fortune and riches in this world,
she, in fact, believed that the mandrake has the virtue of procuring
fortune.
“What have you to say about the mandrake?”
“I deny it entirely.”[235]
ARTICLE VIII. Towards her twentieth year, Jeanne, of her own wish, and
without permission of her father and mother, went to Neufchâteau, in
Lorraine, and was in service for some time at the house of a woman, an
inn-keeper named La Rousse, where lived women of evil life, and where
soldiers were accustomed to lodge in great numbers. During her stay in
this inn, Jeanne sometimes stayed with these evil women, sometimes took
the sheep into the fields, or led the horses to watering in the meadows
and pastures: it was there that she learnt to ride on horseback and to
use arms.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I said elsewhere. I deny the rest.”[236]
ARTICLE IX. Whilst she was in service with these women Jeanne indicted a
young man before the Officials at Toul for breach of promise; many times
she repaired to Toul for this end, and spent thus nearly all that she
had. This young man refused to marry her, because he knew she had been
connected with evil women. He died during the trial. Jeanne then, unable
to remain longer, quitted the service of this woman.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“On the subject of this trial for marriage I have answered elsewhere and
refer to my answer. I deny the rest.”[237]
ARTICLE X. After having quitted the service of La Rousse, Jeanne
pretended, and still doth pretend, to have had continually during five
years, visions and apparitions of Saint Michael Saint Catherine, and
Saint Margaret. They revealed to her, she says, by order of God, that
she should raise the siege of Orleans and crown Charles, whom she calls
her King; and that afterwards she would drive out his enemies from the
realm of France. In spite of her father and mother, she left home, of
her own motion, of her sole inspiration, and went to Robert de
Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs, to whom she communicated, in virtue
of the order of Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret, the
visions and revelations that God had made to her, asking of the said
Robert to find her the means to accomplish what had been revealed to
her. Twice repulsed by Robert, she returned twice to her parents.
Returning a third time to the attempt, on a pretended order sent to her
by revelation, she was then admitted and received by the said Robert.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I said before.”[238]
ARTICLE XI. Having become familiar with the said Robert, Jeanne boasted
that, after having done and accomplished all that had been commanded her
of God, she would have three sons, of whom the first should be Pope, the
second Emperor, and the third King. Robert de Baudricourt, hearing this,
said to her, “Would I could be father to one myself, if they are to be
such great people! my own value would thereby be the greater!” “Nay,
nay, gentle Robert,” replied Jeanne, “it is not time; the Holy Spirit
will accomplish it.”[239] This is the tale which the said Robert hath in
many places often affirmed, told and published, and this in presence of
prelates, lords, and high personages.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I have already said.[240] I never boasted that I should
have three children.”[241]
ARTICLE XII. In order the more openly and better to attain her end,
Jeanne asked of Robert de Baudricourt to have made for her a man’s dress
and armour appropriate. This captain, with great repugnance, ended by
acquiescing in her request. These garments and armour made and
furnished, Jeanne, rejecting and abandoning women’s clothing, her hair
cut a-round like a young coxcomb, took shirt, breeches, doublet, with
hose joined together and fastened to the said doublet by twenty points,
long leggings laced on the outside, a short mantle [surcoat] to the
knees, or thereabouts, close-cut cap, tight-fitting boots or buskins,
long spurs, sword, dagger, breastplate, lance and other arms in fashion
of a man of war, affirming that in this she was executing the order of
God, as had been prescribed to her by revelation.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I refer to what I said before.”
“Did you then take this costume, these arms, and all this warlike
apparel by the order of God?”
“On this also I refer to what I said before.”[242]
ARTICLE XIII. Jeanne attributes to God, His Angels and His Saints,
orders which are against the modesty of the sex, and which are
prohibited by the Divine Law, things abominable to God and man,
interdicted on pain of anathema by ecclesiastical censure, such as
dressing herself in the garments of a man, short, tight, dissolute,
those underneath as well as above. It is in virtue of these pretended
orders that she hath attired herself in sumptuous and stately raiment,
cloth-of-gold and furs; and not only did she wear short tunics, but she
dressed herself in tabards, and garments open at both sides; and it is
notorious that she was taken prisoner in a loose cloak of cloth-of-gold.
She was always seen with a cap on her head, her hair cut short and
a-round in the style of a man. In one word, putting aside the modesty of
her sex, she acted not only against all feminine decency, but even
against the reserve which beseems men of good morals, wearing ornaments
and garments which only profligate men are accustomed to use, and going
so far as to carry arms of offence. To attribute all this to the order
of God, to the order which had been transmitted to her by the Angels and
even by Virgin Saints, is to blaspheme God and His Saints, to destroy
the Divine Law and violate the Canonical Rules; it is to libel the sex
and its virtue, to overturn all decency, to justify all examples of
dissolute living, and to drive others thereto.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I have not blasphemed God nor His Saints.”[243]
ARTICLE XIV. Jeanne affirms that she has done right in attiring herself
in garments worn only by dissolute men; she doth profess that she will
continue to retain them until she shall have received, by revelation,
the express order of God: by this, she outrages God, the Angels, and the
Saints.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I do no wrong in serving God; to-morrow I will answer you.”
[One of the Assessors]: “Did you have revelation or order to wear a
man’s dress?”
“I have already answered that elsewhere. I refer to my previous sayings.
To-morrow I will answer. I know well who made me take a man’s dress; but
I do not know how I can reveal it.”[244]
ARTICLE XV. Jeanne, having many times asked that she might be permitted
to hear Mass, hath been invited to quit the dress she now wears and to
take again her woman’s dress; she hath been allowed to hope that she
will be admitted to hear Mass and to receive Communion, if she will
renounce entirely the dress of a man and take that of a woman, as
beseems her sex; she hath refused. In other words, she hath chosen
rather not to approach the Sacraments nor to assist in Divine Service,
than to put aside her habit, pretending that this would displease God.
In this appears her obstinacy, her hardness of heart, her lack of
charity, her disobedience to the Church, and her contempt of Divine
Sacraments.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I would rather die than revoke what I have done by the order of Our
Lord.”
“Will you, to hear Mass, abandon the dress of a man?”
“I will not abandon it yet; the time is not come. If you refuse to let
me hear Mass, it is in the power of Our Lord to let me hear it, when it
shall please Him, without you. I recollect being admonished to take
again a woman’s dress. As to the irreverence and such like things, I
deny them.”[245]
ARTICLE XVI. Previous to, and since her capture, at the Castle of
Beaurevoir and at Arras, Jeanne hath been many times advised with
gentleness, by noble persons of both sexes, to give up her man’s dress
and resume suitable attire. She hath absolutely refused, and to this day
also she refuses with persistence; she disdains also to give herself up
to feminine work, conducting herself in all things rather as a man than
as a woman.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“At Arras and Beaurevoir I was invited to take a woman’s dress; then I
refused, and I refuse still. As to the women’s work of which you speak,
there are plenty of other women to do it.”[246]
ARTICLE XVII. When Jeanne found herself in the presence of Charles, thus
attired and armed, she promised him these three things among others:
that she would raise the siege of Orleans; that she would have him
consecrated at Rheims; that she would avenge him on his enemies, who,
all of them, English or Burgundians, should be, thanks to her, killed or
driven out of the kingdom. Many times and in many places did she repeat
publicly the same boasts; and, to give them greater weight, then and
often afterwards, she did use divinations, and by these means unveiled
the morals, the entire life, the most secret acts, of persons who came
before her, whom she had never before seen or known; she boasted of
knowing all by revelation.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“In the name of God I brought the news to my King that Our Lord would
restore the kingdom to him, cause him to be crowned at Rheims, and drive
out all his enemies; I was a messenger from God, when I told the King
boldly to set me to work and I would raise the siege of Orleans. I mean,
in so saying, the whole kingdom; and if my Lord of Burgundy and the
other subjects of the King do not return to their obedience, the King
will know how to make them by force. As to the end of the Article, of
knowing Robert de Baudricourt and my King, I hold to what I said
before.”[247]
ARTICLE XVIII. So long as Jeanne remained with Charles, she did dissuade
him with all her power, him and those with him, from consenting to any
treaty of peace, any arrangement with his adversaries; inciting them
always to murder and effusion of blood; affirming that they could only
have peace by sword and lance; and that God willed it so, because
otherwise the enemies of the King would not give up that which they held
in his kingdom; to fight against them thus, is, she told them, one of
the greatest benefits that can happen to all Christendom.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“As to my Lord of Burgundy, I requested him by my ambassadors and my
letters that he would make peace between my King and himself; but as to
the English, the peace they need is that they may go away to their own
country, to England. I have answered on the remainder of the Article;
and I refer to this answer.”[248]
ARTICLE XIX. It was by consulting demons and using divinations, that
Jeanne sent to look for a sword hidden in the Church of Saint Catherine
de Fierbois: (perchance she had already maliciously, fraudulently, and
deceitfully hidden or caused to be hidden this sword in the same church,
to seduce the princes, nobles, clergy, and people, to induce them to
believe more easily that she knew by revelation in what place this sword
was). By this stratagem and others of a like nature she succeeded in
inspiring an absolute faith in all her words.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I said before; I deny all the rest.”[249]
ARTICLE XX. She hath put faith in her ring, in her banner, in certain
pieces of linen, and pennons which she carried or caused to be carried
by her people, and also in the sword found by revelation, according to
her, at Saint Catherine de Fierbois, saying that these things were very
fortunate. She made thereon many execrations and conjurations, in many
and divers places, publicly asserting that by them she would do great
things and would obtain victory over her enemies; that to those of her
people who carried pennons of this kind no ill could happen. She said
all this at Compiègne on the eve of the day when, having sallied to
attack my lord the Duke of Burgundy, she was taken prisoner and many of
her followers were wounded, killed, or taken. She said as much at Saint
Denis, when she incited her army to attack Paris.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I refer to what I have already said. In all I have done there was never
any sorcery or evil arts. As for the good luck of my banner, I refer it
to the fortune sent through it by Our Lord (_de bonâ fortunâ sui
estandart se refert ad fortunium quod Dominus Noster in es
transmissit_).”[250]
ARTICLE XXI. Jeanne, by temerity or presumption, hath caused to be
written certain letters at the head of which she placed the names
‘Jhésus Maria,’ with a cross in the middle. These letters she caused to
be addressed in her name to our Lord the King, to my Lord of Bedford,
Regent of France, to the lords and captains who were then at the siege
of Orleans, containing a number of things wicked, pernicious, contrary
to the Catholic Faith, the tenour of which is found in the Article which
follows:
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I did not send the letters of which you speak in pride or in
presumption, but by command of Our Lord. I remember and acknowledge the
contents of these letters, with the exception of three words. If the
English had believed my letters, they would only have been wise; and
before seven years are gone they will perceive it well enough!”[251]
ARTICLE XXII. Tenour of the letter:[252]
“What have you to say to this letter?”
“I remember having it written except three words, which I did not
dictate. If the English had believed my words they would have acted
wisely. Before seven years are gone, they will feel the truth of what I
wrote to them, and for that, I refer to the answer which I made
elsewhere.”
ARTICLE XXIII. The tenour of the letter contained in the preceding
Article proves well that Jeanne hath been the sport of evil spirits, and
that she often consulted them to know what she ought to do; or, at
least, that, to seduce the people, she imagined these inventions by
lying or wickedness.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I deny ever having done anything under the inspiration of evil
spirits.”[253]
ARTICLE XXIV. Jeanne hath gravely misused the names “Jhésus Maria” and
the sign of the cross placed beside them; it was understood between her
and her people that, when they saw on her letters these words and this
sign, they were to do the contrary of what she wrote: and, in fact, they
did do the contrary.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I said before.”[254]
ARTICLE XXV. Usurping the office of Angels, Jeanne hath said and
affirmed that she hath been sent by God; and she hath said this even for
cases which tend openly to violence and effusion of human blood: a
proposition the most foreign to all holiness, horrible and abominable to
all pious souls.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“First, I begged them to make peace; and it was only in case they would
not make peace that I was ready to fight.”[255]
ARTICLE XXVI. Jeanne, being at Compiègne in August of 1429, did receive
from the Count d’Armagnac a letter of which the tenour forms the article
which follows.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I said before.”[256]
ARTICLE XXVII. Tenour of the said letter.[257]
ARTICLE XXVIII. To this letter Jeanne did send in answer the letter
signed with her name, found in the Articles which follow.
ARTICLES XXIX. AND XXX. Letter of Jeanne to the Count d’Armagnac.[258]
“What have you to say on these Articles, XXVII., XXVIII., XXIX., XXX.,
which have been read to you with great care, from the first word to the
last?”
“I refer to what I answered on Article XXVI.”[259]
_Continuation of the Reading of the Articles in Open Court._
[The next day, Wednesday, March 28th, in the same room, near the great
Hall of the Castle of Rouen, before the Bishop and Brother Jean
Lemaître, assisted by 35 Assessors.]
Before them hath been resumed the reading, begun the preceding day, of
the Articles in the document produced by the Promoter. Their contents in
French, being shewn to Jeanne, Article by Article, she hath been
questioned on each of these Articles and hath continued to reply, as
here followeth, after having anew sworn to speak truth on everything
touching the Trial.[260]
ARTICLE XXXI. From the time of her childhood and since, Jeanne hath
boasted, and every day still doth boast, of having had, and of still
having, numerous revelations and visions on the subject which, although
she hath been on this charitably admonished and legally required to
swear, she hath not made, nor wished to make, nor is now willing to
make, any oath. She will not even make known the revelations made to
her, by words nor by signs. This she hath postponed, contested, refused,
and doth now also postpone, contest, and refuse. Many times hath she
said and affirmed in a formal manner, in Court and outside, that she
will not make known these revelations and visions to you, her Judges,
even if her head should be cut off, or her body dismembered. “They shall
not drag it from my mouth,” she hath said, “neither the sign that God
revealed to me, nor the means whereby I knew that this sign came to me
from God.”
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“As to revealing the sign and the other things, of which you speak, I
may well have said I will not reveal them. I add, to what I before
acknowledged that I should have said I would not reveal it without leave
from Our Lord.”[261]
ARTICLE XXXII. By this refusal to make known these pretended
revelations, you may and should presume strongly that the revelations
and visions of Jeanne, if she had them always, came to her from lying
and evil spirits rather than from good. And all the world may take it
for certain, considering her cruelty, her pride, her dress, her actions,
her lies, the contradictions here given in various Articles, that all
these together constitute in this respect the most powerful of
presumptions, both of law and right.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I did it by revelation, from Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; and I
will maintain it even unto death. If I put on my letters the names
‘Jhésus Maria,’ it was because I was advised to do so by certain persons
of my party; sometimes I used these names, sometimes not. As to that
passage in my answer of which you remind me, ‘All that I did, I did by
the counsel of Our Lord,’ it should be completed thus: ‘All that I did
_well_.’”
“Did you do well or ill to advance on La Charité?”
“If it were ill done, it will be confessed.”
“Did you do well to advance on Paris?”
“The gentlemen of France wished to advance on Paris. In doing this, it
seems to me they did their duty in going against their enemies.”
ARTICLE XXXIII. Jeanne hath presumptuously and audaciously boasted, and
doth still boast, of knowing the future and of having foreseen the past,
of knowing things that are in the present, but hidden or unknown; all
which, an attribute of the Deity, she claims for herself, a simple and
ignorant creature.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“It is in Our Lord’s power to give revelations to whom He pleases; that
which I said of the sword of Fierbois and of things to come, I knew by
revelation.”[262]
ARTICLE XXXIV. Obstinate in her temerity and presumption, Jeanne hath
said, proclaimed, and published, that she recognized and discerned the
voices of Archangels, Angels, and Saints; she hath affirmed and doth
still affirm that she knoweth how to distinguish their Voices from human
voices.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I hold by what I have already said: of my pretended temerity, and, of
that which has been concluded against me, I refer to Our Lord, my
Judge.”[263]
ARTICLE XXXV. Jeanne hath boasted and affirmed that she did know how to
discern those whom God loveth and those whom He hateth.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I hold by what I have already said elsewhere of the King and the Duke
d’Orléans; of the others I know not; I know well that God, for their
well-being,[264] (_pro ediis corporum suorum_), loves my King and the
Duke d’Orléans better than me. I know it by revelation.”[265]
ARTICLE XXXVI. Jeanne hath said, affirmed, and boasted, she doth say,
affirm, and every day boast, that she hath known, and could know
exactly—and that not only herself, but also others through her means
recognized and surely knew—the Voice which came to her, although from
its nature a voice must be invisible to every human being.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I hold by what I have said elsewhere.”[266]
ARTICLE XXXVII. Jeanne doth confess to having frequently done the
contrary to what hath been commanded her by the revelations she doth
boast to have had from God; for example, when she retired from St.
Denis, after the assault on Paris, and when she leaped from the top of
the tower of Beaurevoir. By this, it is manifest, either that she hath
had no revelations from God, or that, if she hath had them, she hath
despised them. And she it is, who, after this, doth dare to affirm that
she is in all things guided and governed by commands from on high and by
revelation! Besides, she hath said that, when she had had the order not
to leap from the top of the tower, she was compelled to act contrary to
this order, without being able to resist the constraint put upon her
will; in the which she appears to think wrongly on the matters of
Free-will and to fall into the error of those who believe that man is
led by Fate or by some other irresistible power.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I hold by what I have said elsewhere. I state in addition that when I
left St. Denis I had permission from my Voices.”
“In acting against your Voices, do you think you committed mortal sin?”
“I have answered elsewhere to that; I refer to that answer. On the
concluding part of this Article, I refer me to God.”[267]
ARTICLE XXXVIII. Jeanne, from the time of her childhood, hath said,
done, and committed a great number of crimes, sins and evil
deeds—shameful, cruel, scandalous, dishonouring, unworthy of her sex;
now she doth say and affirm that all that she hath done hath been with
the approbation and by the will of God; that she hath done nothing and
now doeth nothing which proceedeth not from God, by means of the
revelations transmitted to her by the Holy Angels and the Holy Virgins,
Catherine and Margaret.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I refer to what I have said elsewhere.”[268]
ARTICLE XXXIX. Although the Just sin seven times a day, Jeanne hath said
and published that she hath never committed, or, at least, that she doth
believe never to have committed, mortal sin. Nevertheless, as many
Articles of the present accusation prove, she hath indeed practised, and
on a vast scale, acts customary to nations who are at war, and others
yet more grave.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have answered it; I refer to what I have said elsewhere.”[269]
ARTICLE XL. Forgetful of her salvation, impelled by the devil, she is
not and hath not been ashamed several times and in many and divers
places to receive the Body of Christ, having upon her a man’s dress of
unseemly form, a dress which the laws of God and man do forbid her to
wear.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have answered elsewhere. I rely upon what I have said before. I rely
upon Our Lord.”[270]
ARTICLE XLI. Jeanne, as one desperate, for hate and contempt of the
English, and foreseeing the destruction of Compiègne, which she believed
to be imminent, did attempt to kill herself by throwing herself down
from the top of a tower; at the instigation of the devil, she took it
into her head to commit this action; she applied herself to commit it;
she did commit it in so far as she was able; on the other hand, in so
throwing herself down, she was so well impelled and guided by a diabolic
instinct that she had in view rather the safety of her body than that of
her soul and of many others. Often indeed, hath she boasted that she
would kill herself rather than that she should be delivered to the
English.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I rely upon what I have said before.”[271]
ARTICLE XLII. Jeanne hath said and published that Saint Catherine and
Saint Margaret and Saint Michael have bodies—that is to say, head, eyes,
face, hair, etc.; that she hath touched them with her hands; that she
hath kissed them and embraced them.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have already answered it, and I rely upon what I have said.”[272]
ARTICLE XLIII. Jeanne hath said and published that the Saints, the
Angels, and the Archangels speak the French language and not the English
language, because the Saints, the Angels, and the Archangels are not on
the side of the English, but of the French; she hath outraged the Saints
in glory, in implying to them a mortal hatred against a Catholic realm
and a nation devoted, according to the will of the Church, to the
veneration of all the Saints.
This Article having been set forth to Jeanne word for word, she only
answered thus:
“I rely on Our Lord, and upon what I have replied before.”[273]
ARTICLE XLIV. Jeanne hath boasted and doth yet boast, she hath published
and doth publish, that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret have promised
to lead her to Paradise, and have assured her that she will obtain
heavenly joy if she preserve her virginity; she affirms she is certain
of this.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I rely on Our Lord and on what I answered elsewhere.”[274]
ARTICLE XLV. Although the judgments of God are impenetrable to us,
nevertheless Jeanne hath said, uttered, declared, and promulgated that
she hath known and can know those who are Saints, Archangels, Angels, or
the elect of God; she knoweth how to discern them.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I refer to what I have already said.”[275]
ARTICLE XLVI. She hath said that, before leaping from the tower of
Beaurevoir, she did most lovingly entreat Saint Catherine and Saint
Margaret for the people of Compiègne, saying to these Saints in a
reproachful manner, “And how can God allow these people of Compiègne,
who are so loyal, to die thus miserably?” In the which did appear her
impatience and her irreverence towards God and the Saints.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I refer to what I have already said.”[276]
ARTICLE XLVII. Provoked with her wound, Jeanne, after the leap from the
tower of Beaurevoir, seeing she had not attained her end, began to
blaspheme God and the Saints, abjuring them with horrible taunts,
insulting them terribly, to the great confusion of all those present. In
the same way, when she was in the Castle of Rouen, many times, and on
different days, did she blaspheme and deny God, the Blessed Virgin, and
the Saints, in impatience and resentment at being brought for judgment
before an ecclesiastical tribunal and forced to appear there.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I hold by Our Lord and by what I have already said.”[277]
ARTICLE XLVIII. Jeanne hath said that she did and doth still believe
that the spirits which appear to her are Angels and Archangels and the
Saints of God, as firmly as she believes in the Christian Faith, and in
the Articles of that Faith, although she can report no sign which can be
of a nature to prove that she hath in reality had this communication;
she hath consulted neither Bishop, Priest, nor Prelate, nor any
ecclesiastical person whatsoever, to know whether she ought to have
faith in such spirits; yet more, she saith that her Voices have
forbidden her to reveal anything to any one whosoever it may be, save
first to a captain of soldiers, then to Charles her King, and afterwards
to other persons purely laic. By this, she admits that her belief on
this point is audacious, her faith erroneous, her revelations doubtful,
having always kept them from the knowledge of the clergy and never
having been willing to reveal them save to seculars.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I have answered it already. I refer to what is written. And as to the
signs, if those who asked for them were not worthy, I could not help it.
Many a time did I pray that it might please God to reveal it to some of
this party. It is true, that to believe in my revelations I asked
neither Bishop, Priest, nor any one else. I believe it was Saint
Michael, from the good teaching he shewed me.”
“Did Saint Michael say to you: ‘I am Saint Michael’?”
“I have answered before.”
As to the concluding part of the Article, she answered: “I refer me to
Our Lord.... As firmly as I believe Our Saviour Jesus Christ suffered
death to redeem us from the pains of hell, so firmly do I believe that
it was Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel, Saint Catherine and Saint
Margaret whom Our Saviour sent to comfort and to counsel me.”[278]
ARTICLE XLIX. On the foundation of this fancy alone Jeanne hath
venerated spirits of this kind, kissing the ground on the which she said
they had walked, bending the knee before them, embracing them, kissing
them, paying all sorts of adoration to them, giving them thanks with
clasped hands, taking the greatest familiarities with them; when she did
not know if they were good or evil spirits, and when, by reason of all
the circumstances revealed above, these spirits should have been rather
considered by her as evil. This worship, this veneration, is idolatry:
it is a compact with demons.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have already answered; for the conclusion, I refer me to Our
Lord.”[279]
ARTICLE L. Every day and many times daily Jeanne doth invoke these evil
spirits and consult them on what she should do,—notably on the manner in
which she should answer in court. This seems to constitute, and doth in
effect constitute, an invocation of demons.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have already answered it; I shall call them to my help as long as I
live.”
“In what way shall you call them?”
“I beseech Our Lord and Our Lady that they will send me counsel and
comfort, and then They send it to me.”
“In what words do you beseech this?”
“I say ‘Most sweet Lord, in honour of Thy Holy Passion I beseech Thee,
if Thou lovest me, that Thou wilt reveal to me how I should answer these
Clergy. I know well, as regards this dress, the command by which I have
taken it; but I do not know in what way I should leave it off: for this,
may it please Thee to teach me.’ And soon they come to me. I often by my
Voices have news of my Lord of Beauvais.”
_The Bishop_: “What do your Voices say of Us?”
“I will tell you apart.... To-day they came to me three times.”
“In your chamber?”
“I have answered you; I hear them well. Saint Catherine and Saint
Margaret have told me what I should say on the subject of my
dress.”[280]
ARTICLE LI. Jeanne hath not feared to proclaim that Saint Michael, the
Archangel of God, did come to her with a great multitude of Angels in
the house of a woman where she had stopped at Chinon; that he walked
with her, holding her by the hand; that they together mounted the stairs
of the Castle and together gained the Chamber of the King; that the
Angel did reverence to the King, bowing before him, surrounded by this
multitude of Angels, of which some had crowns on their heads and others
had wings. To say such things of Archangels and the Holy Angels is
presumption, audacity, lying, as in the holy books we do not read that
they did a like reverence, a like demonstration, to any saint—not even
to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God. Jeanne hath said that the
Archangel Saint Gabriel hath often come to her with the blessed Michael,
and sometimes even with thousands of Angels. She hath also proclaimed
that the same Angel, at her prayer, did bring in this company of Angels
a crown, the most precious possible, to place upon the head of her
King—a crown which is to-day deposited in the treasury of the King; that
the King would have been crowned at Rheims with this crown, if he had
deferred his consecration some days: it was only because of the extreme
haste of his coronation that he received another. All these are lies
imagined by Jeanne at the instigation of the devil, or suggested by
demons in deceitful apparitions, to make sport of her curiosity,—she who
would search secrets beyond her capacity and condition.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“On the subject of the Angel who brought the sign I have already
answered. As to what the Promoter suggests on the subject of the
thousands of Angels, I do not recollect having said it—that is to say,
the number; I did certainly say that I had never been wounded without
receiving great comfort and help from God and from the Saints Catherine
and Margaret. As to the crown, on this also I have replied. Of the
conclusion which the Promoter makes against my deeds, I refer me to God,
Our Lord; and where the crown was made and forged, I leave to Our
Lord.”[281]
ARTICLE LII. By all these inventions, Jeanne hath so seduced Christian
people that many have in her presence adored her as a Saint, and in her
absence do adore her still, composing in her honour masses and collects;
yet more, going so far as to call her the greatest of all the Saints
after the Virgin Mary, raising statues and images to her in the Churches
of the Saints, and bearing about them medals in lead or other metal
representing her—exactly as the Church does to honour the memory and the
recollection of the canonized Saints—publicly proclaiming that she is
sent from God, and more Angel than woman. Such things are pernicious to
the Christian religion, scandalous, and prejudicial to the salvation of
souls.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“As to the commencement of the Article, I have already answered; as to
the conclusion, I refer to Our Lord.”[282]
ARTICLE LIII. In contempt of the orders of God and the Saints, Jeanne,
in her presumption and pride, hath gone so far as to take command over
men; she hath made herself commander-in-chief and hath had under her
orders nearly 16,000 men, among whom were Princes, Barons, and a number
of Gentlemen: she hath made them all fight, being their principal
captain.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“As to the fact of being commander-in-chief, I have answered before; if
I have been commander-in-chief, it was to fight the English. As to the
conclusion of the Article I refer me to God.”[283]
ARTICLE LIV. Jeanne doth behave in an unseemly manner with men, refuses
the society of women, wishes to live with men only, to be waited upon by
them, even in her own room and in the most private details: a like thing
hath never been seen nor heard of a chaste and pious woman.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“It is true that my command was over men; but as to my quarters and
lodging, most often I had a woman with me. And when I was engaged in the
war I slept fully dressed and armed, not being able always to find a
woman. As to the conclusion of the Article, I refer me to God.”
ARTICLE LV. Jeanne hath abused the revelations and prophecies that she
saith she hath had from God, to procure for herself lucre and temporal
profit; by means of these pretended revelations, she hath acquired great
riches, a great show and great estate in officers, horses, and attire;
she hath obtained great revenues for her brothers and relations,
imitating in this the false prophets, who, to acquire temporal gain or
to obtain the favour of kings, were accustomed to pretend that they had
had revelations from God on things which they knew would be to the taste
of their princes; abusing the divine oracles, she hath thus attributed
her lies to God.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I have answered elsewhere. As to the gifts made to my brothers, that
which the King gave to them was of his grace, without my asking. As to
the charge made by the Promoter and the conclusion of the Article, I
refer me to Our Lord.”[284]
ARTICLE LVI. Jeanne hath many times proclaimed that she hath two
counsellors whom she calls ‘Counsellors of the Well,’ and who have come
to her since she hath been taken captive, as appears from the
declaration made by Catherine de la Rochelle before the Officials in
Paris.[285] This Catherine hath said that Jeanne, if she be not well
guarded, will get out of prison, by the help of the Devil.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I hold by what I have already said; and as to the ‘Counsellors of the
Well,’ I do not know what it means. I certainly believe that I overheard
Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret there. The conclusion of the Article
I deny.”
[And then she did swear by her oath[286] that she did not wish that the
Devil should get her out of prison.[287]]
ARTICLE LVII. The day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Jeanne did
assemble the whole army of Charles, to make an attack on the city of
Paris; she did lead the army against the city, affirming that she would
enter it on that day—that she knew it by revelation: she directed all
the arrangements possible for the entry. And, nevertheless, she is not
afraid to deny it before us here in court. And at other places also, at
La Charité-sur-Loire, for example, at Pont L’Evêque, at Compiègne, when
she attacked the army of the Duke of Burgundy, she affirmed and foretold
that which, according to her, would take place, saying that she knew it
by revelation: now, not only did the things predicted by her not come to
pass, but the very contrary happened. Before you she hath denied having
made these predictions, because they were not realized, as she had said;
but many people worthy of trust report[288] to have heard her utter
them. At the time of the assault on Paris, she said that thousands of
angels were around her, ready to bear her to Paradise if she should be
killed: now, when she was asked why, after the promises made to her, not
only did she not enter Paris but that many of her men and she herself
had been wounded in a horrible manner and some even killed, she answered
“It was Jesus, who broke His word to me.”
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“As to the beginning, I have answered it already. If I think of more
later, I will willingly answer then. I never said that Jesus had failed
me.”[289]
ARTICLE LVIII. Jeanne did cause to be painted a standard whereon are two
Angels, one on each side of God holding the world in His hand, with the
words “_Jhésus Maria_” and other designs. She said that she caused this
standard to be done by the order of God, who had revealed it to her by
the agency of His Angels and Saints. This standard she did place at
Rheims near the Altar, during the consecration of Charles, wishing, in
her pride and vain glory, that it should be peculiarly honoured. Also
did she cause to be painted arms, in the which she placed two golden
lilies on a field azure; between the lilies a sword argent, with a hilt
and guard gilded, the point of the sword pointing upwards and surmounted
with a crown, gilded. All this is display and vanity, it is not religion
nor piety; to attribute such vanities to God and to the Angels, is to be
wanting in respect to God and the Saints.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have already answered it; for the conclusions drawn by the Promoter,
I refer to Our Lord.”[290]
ARTICLE LIX. At St. Denis in France Jeanne did offer and cause to be
placed in the Church, in the most prominent place, the armour she wore
when she was wounded while attacking the town of Paris; she desired that
this armour should be honoured as relics. In this same town, she did
cause to be lighted candles, for the melted wax to fall on the heads of
little children, saying that this would bring them happiness, and making
by such witchcrafts many divinations.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“As to my armour, I have answered; as to the candles lighted and melted,
I deny it.”[291]
ARTICLE LX. In contempt of the laws and sanction of the Church, Jeanne
hath several times before this tribunal refused to speak the truth: by
this, she doth render suspect all she hath said or done in matters of
faith and revelation, because she dares not reveal them to
ecclesiastical judges; she dreads the just punishment she hath merited
and of which she appears herself to be conscious, when, on this
question, she did in court urge this proverb, that “for speaking the
truth, one was often hanged.” Also she hath often said: “You will not
know all,” and again, “I would rather have my head cut off than tell you
all.”
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I never sought delay, except to answer more surely on what was asked
me. When I am doubtful if I ought to answer, I ask delay to know if I
ought to speak. As to the counsel of my King, because it does not touch
on this case, I would not reveal it. Of the sign given to the King, I
have told it, because the clergy did constrain me to do so.”[292]
ARTICLE LXI. Admonished of having to submit all her words and actions to
the Church Militant, after that the distinction between the Church
Militant and the Church Triumphant had been shewn to her, Jeanne
declared that she submitted herself to the Church Triumphant and refused
to submit to the Church Militant, confessing by this that she doth not
rightly understand the Article of the Faith ‘I believe in the Church,
One, Holy, Catholic,’ and that she is in error on this point. She hath
said she would reveal them only to God, and that she referred her acts
to God and to His Saints and not to the judgment of the Church.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I wish with all my power to give honour and reverence to the Church
Militant. For referring my acts to the Church Militant, I must refer to
Our Lord Who caused me to do them.”
“Will you refer to the Church Militant as to what you have done?”
“Send me the clerk on Saturday next, and I will answer.”[293]
ARTICLE LXII. Jeanne hath laboured to scandalize the people, to induce
them to believe in her talk, taking to herself the authority of God and
His Angels, presumptuously seeking to seduce men from ecclesiastical
authority, as do the false prophets who establish sects of error and
perdition and separate themselves from the unity of the Church; a thing
pernicious in the Christian religion, which, if the Bishops did not
provide against it, might destroy ecclesiastical authority; on all
sides, in fact, raising up men and women who, pretending to have
revelations from God and the Angels, will sow untruth and error—as hath
already happened to many since this woman hath arisen and hath begun to
scandalize Christian people and to publish her knaveries.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I will answer next Saturday.”
ARTICLE LXIII. Jeanne is not afraid to lie in court, and to violate her
own oath when on the subject of her revelations; she doth affirm a
number of contradictory things, and which imply contradiction among
themselves: she doth not fear to hurl malediction against a whole
nation, the rulers of that nation and its greatest people; she doth
speak of them without respect, allowing herself a tone of mockery and
derision such as no woman in a state of holiness would allow; which
sheweth well that she is ruled and guided by evil spirits and not, as
she hath boasted, by God and the Angels. Christ said of false prophets,
“Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I refer to what I have said, and, for the conclusion, to God Our
Lord.”[294]
ARTICLE LXIV. Jeanne doth pretend to know that she hath obtained pardon
of the sin committed when, in despair, driven by the evil spirits, she
threw herself from the tower of the Castle at Beaurevoir: yet the
Scriptures say that no one knoweth if he is worthy of love or hate, nor,
in consequence, if he is purged of sin and justified.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have answered you, and to that I refer. Of the charge and the
conclusion, I refer me to Our Lord.”
ARTICLE LXV. Many times Jeanne hath said that she asked of God to send
her special revelations by the Angels and by the Saints Catherine and
Margaret upon what she ought to do: for example, in the matter of
learning if she ought to make known the truth in court on certain points
and certain facts which are personal to herself. It is to tempt God, to
ask Him that which ought not to be asked of Him, because there is no
need, and man may himself suffice for it by his own research. Thus, by
the leap from the tower of Beaurevoir she doth seem manifestly to have
tempted God.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I have answered it, and will not, without the leave of Our Lord, reveal
what has been revealed to me. It is not without need that I beseech God.
I would He might send me yet more, so that it might be discerned that I
am come from God and that it is He Who hath sent me.”
ARTICLE LXVI. Of many of the deeds and words that have just been noticed
some are opposed to the Divine Law, to Gospel Law, to Canon Law, to
Civil Law, and to the rules of General Councils; others are witchcrafts,
divinations, or superstitions; others breathe heresy and errors in
faith; others are attempts against peace and tend to the effusion of
human blood; others constitute blasphemies against God and the Saints
and are wounding to pious ears. In all this, the Accused, by her
audacious temerity, at the instigation of the Devil, hath offended God
and sinned against Holy Church; she hath been a cause of scandal; she is
on all these points notoriously defamed: she should be punished and
corrected by you.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I am a good Christian; for all with which you charge me I refer to Our
Lord.”
ARTICLE LXVII. All and each of these transgressions the Accused hath
committed, perpetrated, said, uttered, recited, dogmatized, promulgated,
put in action, as much in your jurisdiction as elsewhere, in many and
divers places of this realm, not once only but many times, in divers
times, days and hours. She hath fallen again and again into all these
errors; she hath furnished counsel, help, and favour to those who have
committed them with her.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“I deny it.”
ARTICLE LXVIII. Because a persistent clamour hath struck your ears not
once only, but many times; because public rumour and an information
based on what hath gone before hath made you recognize that the Accused
is vehemently suspect and defamed; you have decreed that there is reason
to bring an action against her, and to proceed therein, by you or one of
you, by causing the said woman to be cited, and by setting her to
answer—as hath been done.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“This Article concerns the Judges.”
ARTICLE LXIX. By all which precedes, the Accused is vehemently suspect,
scandalized and as far as possible defamed by all honest and serious
people. But by all that hath gone before she is neither corrected nor
amended; she hath postponed and doth still postpone; she hath refused
and doth still refuse to correct or amend herself; she hath continued
and persevered, doth continue and persevere, in her errors, although by
you the Judges, and by a great number of notable clergy, and other
honest persons, she hath been charitably and otherwise duly and
sufficiently warned, summoned and required.
“What have you to say to this Article?”
“The misdeeds brought forward against me by the Promoter, I have not
done. For the rest, I refer me to God. Of all the misdeeds brought
forward against me, I do not think I have committed any against the
Christian faith.”
“If you have done anything against the Christian faith, will you submit
to the Church and to those to whom correction belongs?”
“On Saturday, after dinner, I will answer you.”
ARTICLE LXX. All and each of these propositions contained in these
Articles are true, notorious and manifest; the public voice and rumour
hath occupied and doth occupy itself therewith; the Accused hath
recognized and acknowledged these things as true, many times and
sufficiently, before witnesses proved and worthy of belief, in and out
of court.
“What have you to say on this Article?”
“I deny all that I have not recognized and confessed.”
CONCLUSION.—Having attained conviction of the truth of all or part of
the preceding Articles in a manner to justify the proposed end, which is
that you may be enabled to pronounce in recognition of the cause, the
Promoter doth conclude that it will be ultimately judged by you, upon
the whole, according to law and right.
And the said Promoter humbly imploreth your offices on all these things,
as may be suitable.
The Seventy Articles preceding [p. 341] which form the Act of Accusation
for the Trial, were reduced to Twelve by Maître Nicolas Midi; the twelve
Articles are here given.
-----
Footnote 213:
_Chronicles of the Dukes of Alençon._
Footnote 214:
Philip the Good, son of Jean Sans-Peur, the Duke murdered at the
Bridge of Montereau in 1418 by the Armagnac faction; he was
consequently an ally of England. Anne, his sister, married John, Duke
of Bedford. Efforts were constantly made by both sides to secure the
sympathies of so powerful an ally; but after the death of his sister
in 1432, the Duke’s attachment to the English cause waned; and in
1435, a week after the death of Bedford, he made peace with Charles
VII., and signed the Treaty of Arras, which practically restored
France to the King. He died in 1467, and was succeeded by his son
Charles the Bold.
Footnote 215:
Jean de Luxembourg, Sire de Luxembourg and de Choques, nephew of the
Constable Waleran de Luxembourg. A captain of Free-Lances in the
service of the Duke of Burgundy, afterwards Count de Ligny and Guise,
and a knight of the Toison d’Or. He remained true to the English, even
after his chief had made terms with Charles, and died in 1441, still
obstinately refusing to recognize the Treaty of Arras.
Footnote 216:
Louis de Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, 1414, and Chancellor of
France for Henry VI., 1425, surnamed “Le Renard”; afterwards
Archbishop of Rouen, Bishop of Hély, and Cardinal. A warm adherent of
the English cause, and a consistent supporter of Bedford and Warwick.
It was he who received information of the capture of Jeanne on May
25th, and himself went with the news to the Parliament. When the tide
turned, and Charles VII. was able to establish himself in his kingdom,
the Bishop retired to England, and there died, 1443.
Footnote 217:
Jean D’Aulon. Formerly a squire in the service of the King, appointed
Chief of Jeanne’s Household by Charles VII., in 1428. He remained with
her from that time till her capture at Compiègne; was taken prisoner
with her, and carried to Beaulieu, but was ransomed during the autumn.
He was afterwards knighted, and made Seneschal of Beaucaire.
Footnote 218:
Lionel Bastard de Wandonne; now _Wandomme_, a castle in Artois; a
captain in the service of Jean de Luxembourg, to whom the Maid finally
surrendered at Compiègne. For his share of the reward he received 300
pounds _rente_. He was afterwards Count de Nesle and Beaulieu, in
Vermandois.
Footnote 219:
The much-vexed question of the date of the Capture seems to be decided
by these two last contemporary documents. The same date, May 23rd, is
also given in the Chronicle of William of Worcester.
Footnote 220:
The news, received in the letter from Jean de Luxembourg, was
communicated by his brother, the Bishop of Thérouanne, to the
Parliament.
Footnote 221:
Or let herself down, as some state, by a rope that was too short to
reach the ground.
Footnote 222:
Massieu.
Footnote 223:
Cusquel.
Footnote 224:
Taquel.
Footnote 225:
Lebouchier.
Footnote 226:
Massieu.
Footnote 227:
_Ibid._
Footnote 228:
According to the rules of Inquisitorial Trials it was not necessary to
grant an advocate to the accused. In the “Directorium Inquisitorum”
the Decretal on the treatment of Heretics empowers the Bishop and the
Judge of the Inquisition, acting conjointly, to dispense with other
assistance, and to act alone.
Footnote 229:
See “Execution of the Mandate,” Feb. 20th.
Footnote 230:
Manchon.
Footnote 231:
_Ibid._
Footnote 232:
Massieu.
Footnote 233:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 5th Public Examination,
March 1st; 8th Private Examination, 17th; and 9th Private Examination,
March 17th.
Footnote 234:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th.
Footnote 235:
Cf. 5th Public Examination, March 1st.
Footnote 236:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd, and 3rd Public Examination,
February 24th.
Footnote 237:
Cf. 2nd Private Examination, March 12th.
Footnote 238:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 3rd Public Examination,
February 24th; 4th Public Examination, February 27th; 5th Public
Examination, March 1st; 2nd Private Examination, March 12th; 3rd
Private Examination, March 12th.
Footnote 239:
This answer is given in French in the text.
Footnote 240:
No previous answer is recorded.
Footnote 241:
Cf. 2nd Private Examination, March 12th.
Footnote 242:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 4th Public Examination,
February 27th; 3rd Private Examination, March 12th; and 8th Private
Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 243:
The two following questions and answers appear in the Minute only:—
“But, Jeanne, the Holy Canons and Holy Writ declare that women who
take men’s dress or men who take women’s dress, do a thing abominable
to God. How then can you say that you took this dress at God’s
command?”
“You have been answered. If you wish that I should answer you further,
grant me delay, and I will answer you.”
“Will you not take the dress of a woman to receive your Saviour on
Easter Day?”
“Neither for that nor for anything else will I yet put off my dress. I
make no difference between man’s dress and woman’s dress for receiving
my Saviour. I ought not to be refused for this question of dress.” Cf.
4th Public Examination, February 27th, and 6th Public Examination,
March 3rd.
Footnote 244:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 3rd Private Examination,
March 12th; 8th Private Examination, March 17th. These questions and
answers come after Article XIII. in the minute.
Footnote 245:
Cf. 7th Private Examination, March 15th; 8th Private Examination,
March 17th.
After Article XV., the following sentence is inserted in the Extracts,
but is not in the Procès. “She added that the Demoiselle de Luxembourg
prayed the Seigneur de Luxembourg not to give her up to the English.”
Footnote 246:
Cf. 6th Public Examination, March 3rd.
Footnote 247:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 4th Private Examination,
March 13th.
Footnote 248:
Cf. 4th Public Examination, February 27th.
Footnote 249:
Cf. 4th Public Examination, February 27th; 8th Private Examination,
March 17th.
Footnote 250:
Cf. 5th Public Examination, March 1st; 6th Public Examination, March
3rd; 9th Private Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 251:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 6th Public Examination,
March 3rd.
Footnote 252:
_Vide_ 5th Public Examination, March 1st: pages 36–38.
Footnote 253:
Cf. 4th Public Examination, February 27th.
Footnote 254:
Cf. 9th Private Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 255:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 9th Private Examination,
March 17th.
Footnote 256:
Cf. 5th Public Examination, March 1st.
Footnote 257:
_Vide_ 5th Public Examination, March 1st: pages 34–35.
Footnote 258:
_Vide ante_, page 35.
Footnote 259:
Cf. 5th Public Examination, March 1st.
Footnote 260:
The following incident occurs in the Minute only:
The Bishop, referring to the promise given on the previous day by
Jeanne that she would answer on the subject of her dress, asks that,
before proceeding with the reading, this answer may be given. To which
Jeanne replies:
“The dress and the arms that I wear, I wear by the permission of God:
I will not leave them off without the permission of God, even if it
cost me my head: but, if it should so please Our Lord, I will leave
them off: I will not take a woman’s dress if I have not permission
from Our Saviour.”
Footnote 261:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 3rd Public Examination,
February 24th; 4th Public Examination, February 27th; 5th Public
Examination, March 1st; 7th Private Examination, March 15th; 8th
Private Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 262:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 4th Public Examination,
February 27th; 5th Public Examination, March 1st; 6th Public
Examination, March 3rd; 1st Private Examination, March 10th; 3rd
Private Examination, March 12th; 5th Private Examination, March 14th.
Footnote 263:
Cf. 4th Public Examination, February 27th; 5th Public Examination,
March 1st; 7th Private Examination, March 15th.
Footnote 264:
Minute reads: “pour l’aise de son corps.”
Footnote 265:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 3rd Public Examination,
Feb. 24th; 8th Private Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 266:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd.
Footnote 267:
Cf. 2nd Public Examination, February 22nd; 1st Private Examination,
March 10th; 7th Private Examination, March 15th.
Footnote 268:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 7th Private Examination,
March 15th.
Footnote 269:
Cf. 3rd Public Examination, February 24th; 5th Public Examination,
March 1st; 6th Private Examination, March 14th.
Footnote 270:
Cf. 6th Public Examination, March 3rd.
Footnote 271:
Cf. 6th Public Examination, March 3rd; 5th Private Examination, March
28th.
Footnote 272:
Cf. 9th Private Examination, March 17th.
Footnote 273:
Cf. 5th Public Examination, March 1st.
Footnote 274:
Cf. 5th Private Examination, March 14th; 6th Private Examination,
March 14th; 5th Public Examination, March 1st.
Footnote 275:
Cf. 4th Public Examination, February 27th; 5th Public Examination,
March 1st; 6th Public Examination, March 3rd.
Footnote 276:
Cf. 6th Public Examination, March 3rd.
Footnote 277: