taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
remained at the head of their hostile factions. ... The Count
d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
hands. ... The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
him than to the other party. ... For a whole day's ride round
the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
moment for a second expedition." The English king took
advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,--
especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
in the court. ... The court of each prison became a
slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
followed, both parties making a truce with the English
invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
one side the treachery was consummated a month later
(September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
presence.
{1175}
This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
easy prey to foreign conquest.
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
second series, chapters 28-29._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapter 2._
FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
Burgundy's revenge.
Henry the Fifth's triumph.
Two kings in Paris.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Death of Henry.
"Whilst civil war was ... penetrating to the very core of the
kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
neighbouring country. ... Fifteen thousand men of
city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
England." After this great success there were truces brought
about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
nothing--except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
"the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
this peace, which seemed to them treason. ... In the duchy of
Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. ...
It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
substantial and durable success for him. ... Towards the end
of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
delude himself as to his condition, he ... had himself removed
to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
his last royal instructions. ... He expired on the 31st of
August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 23._
At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
France flocked into his ante-chambers."
_A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapters 2-3._
FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
Accession of King Charles VII.
{1176}
FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
The Mission of the Maid.
"France divided--two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
justice--met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
17,1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands--sometimes
friends, sometimes enemies--driving each other on, wave after
wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. ... Such
was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,--daughter of a
peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
maiden--of the voices she heard--of the conviction which came
upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
country--and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
about her mission until all people bent to her as the
messenger and minister of God--the story is a familiar one to
all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' ... The
king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
Rheims to receive your holy unction--now that you at last are
king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' ... From that
moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
had given victory, wished her to remain always their
prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner
to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of
Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered
her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and
burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was
a complex crime, in which each party got rid of
responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris
[the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of
the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the
sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with
England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This
bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were
her countrymen, had lasted six months. ... During these six
months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops
of Charles VII.--her spirit, which still guided the camp and
council of the king--the patriotic, though superstitious,
veneration of the people, which her captivity only
doubled,--and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy,
... all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon
the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan,
although absent, triumphed everywhere."
_A. de Lamartine,
Memoirs of Celebrated Characters: Joan of Arc._
"It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
taken ... to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
VII., that subject Joan of Arc. ... Yet, no sooner was she
captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
that she might still survive.
{1177}
So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
heroine returned. ... The brothers of Joan of Arc might
possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
which the King had assigned as their arms. ... It will be easy
to trace the true character of Joan. ... Nowhere do modern
annals display a character more pure--more generous--more
humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories--more
free from all taint of selfishness--more akin to the champions
and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
a general or statesman--as skilful in leading armies, or
directing councils--we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
found to resolve themselves into two--either to rush headlong
upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
... Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
Orleans, at the sole charge ... of the matrons and maids of
that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
differ."
_Lord Mahon,
Historical Essays,
pages 53-57._
"A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's
dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for
which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.'
Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of
the people still followed her, but her enemies--not the
English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles--began
to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a
hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those
hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a
peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways,
could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of
her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed
against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as
a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice
in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. ...
Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
they should have died without confession. She wept at the
abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!'
she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called
me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of
your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once
seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap,
comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious
in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the
most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine.
In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a
city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose
protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence
of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her
very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts
and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was
entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received
communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says
Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and
make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the
mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made
them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From
presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When
women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said:
'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as
mine.'"
_J. O'Hagan,
Joan of Arc,
pages 61-66._