BURGUNDIANS AND ARMAGNACS IN FRANCE, 1380-1435
Minority of Charles VI.—The princes of the lilies—Risings in
Paris—Intervention in Flanders—Battle of Roosebek and death of
Philip van Artevelde—Rule of the _Marmousets_—Insanity of Charles
VI.—Rivalry for the government—Philip the Bold of Burgundy—Louis of
Orleans—John the Fearless—Murder of Orleans—Outbreak of civil
war—The _Cabochiens_ in Paris—Victory of the Armagnacs in 1413—Henry
V. invades France—Battle of Agincourt—Armagnacs retain their
ascendency in France—English successes in Normandy—Burgundians seize
Paris—Murder of John the Fearless—Treaty of Troyes—War in Northern
France—Deaths of Henry V. and Charles VI.—John of Bedford and
Charles VII.—Divided allegiance of France—Humphrey of Gloucester and
Jacqueline of Hainault—Quarrels at the court of Charles VII.—Philip
the Good acquires territories in the Netherlands—Siege of
Orleans—Successes of Jeanne Darc—Her capture and death—Character of
the War—Quarrel of Bedford and Burgundy—Treaty of Arras and death of
Bedford.
The death of Charles V. in 1380 ushered in one of the most disastrous
periods in the history of France. The young [Sidenote: Minority of
Charles VI.] Charles VI. was only eleven years of age, and the
government fell into the hands of his uncles, the dukes of Anjou, Berri,
and Burgundy, and their brother-in-law, the duke of Bourbon. These men
represented the new class of royal nobles, or princes of the lilies, and
it was soon evident that their interests were those of their caste, and
not those of the monarchy with which they were connected by blood. Their
conduct was characterised by the same selfish love of independence as
had been displayed by the older feudal nobles, whose lands had fallen to
them by inheritance, marriage, or royal grant. It was a momentous fact
for France that the power of the crown was wielded just at this time by
men who desired not to advance that power, but merely to abuse it for
their own profit and that of their fellow-nobles. Everywhere feudalism
was fighting a final and desperate struggle to maintain itself against
the [Sidenote: Feudalism and its opponents.] forces which were destined
to effect its overthrow. In Germany the Swabian towns were engaged in
war with the nobles, and the Swiss were preparing for the struggle in
which they won their great victory of Sempach. In England social
discontent was encouraged and organised by the teaching of Lollard
priests, and the year 1381 witnessed the famous upheaval which is
usually associated with the picturesque episode of the Kentish leader,
Wat Tyler. In Flanders the citizens of Ghent were heading a rebellion
against their count, Lewis de Mâle; and though the latter succeeded in
detaching Bruges from the league of towns, he found the militia of Ghent
more than a match for his feudal levies, and was compelled to appeal for
assistance to his suzerain, the French king. It is important to remember
that these movements were connected by more than the accident of
occurring at the same time. News travelled more rapidly in the
fourteenth century than it had done in earlier times, and a
consciousness of common class interests was beginning to unite men of
different countries, as common religious interests united them two
centuries later. Events in Germany and England, and still more events in
Flanders, influenced opinion and action in France. The burghers of Paris
and other towns had not forgotten their temporary triumphs in 1356 and
1357, and in 1380 the general unrest in western Europe gave them a new
stimulus to action just at a time when the change of government made
their grievances more intolerable.
Even under Charles V. the burden of taxation had excited indignant
murmuring, and on his deathbed the [Sidenote: Risings in Paris.] wise
king had promised that the recent imposts on the sale of commodities
should be abolished. But Charles’s brothers needed money for their own
purposes; and the eldest, Louis of Anjou, was so greedy, that he stole
the crown jewels and the treasure which Charles had amassed for his son.
An order was issued that the taxes should be collected in spite of the
promised relief. Paris rose in revolt, and an ordinance was extorted
from the terrified regents that all taxes imposed since the reign of
Philip IV. should be withdrawn. Peace was purchased for a year by this
concession; but at the beginning of 1382, while the regents were engaged
in suppressing a rising in Rouen, an attempt was again made to collect
the tax on sales. The mob rose in arms, and their most common weapon
gave them the name of _Maillotins_, or the hammerers. The streets were
barricaded, and again the government yielded. In May 1382 an amnesty was
promised to the rebels, who showed their gratitude by a civic gift of a
hundred thousand francs.
This treaty was the last act of the duke of Anjou, who had hitherto been
the guiding spirit in the regency. His one aim had been to collect funds
for an expedition to Italy, and in this year he set out for Naples to
enforce his claim against Charles of Durazzo (see p. 154). His departure
left the chief power in the hands of Philip of Burgundy, who had bought
off his elder and incapable brother, the duke of Berri, by handing over
to him the wealthy province of Languedoc. Hitherto the French Government
had refused to give any assistance to the count of Flanders, who was
reduced to great straits by a victory of the Gantois outside [Sidenote:
Intervention in Flanders.] the walls of Bruges (May 2, 1382). Philip van
Artevelde, the son of Jacob van Artevelde, was now more powerful than
his father had ever been. He was not only supreme in Ghent, but he
claimed to be _ruwaert_ or regent of the whole of Flanders. After his
victory he proceeded to lay siege to Oudenarde, the last stronghold of
the court and the Flemish nobles. If the town were allowed to fall, the
triumph of the burghers would be complete. There was sufficient evidence
of intercourse between Ghent and Paris to excite the misgivings of a
French ruler, and, moreover, the duke of Burgundy had a strong personal
interest of his own in the matter. He was the son-in-law, and his wife
was the heiress of Lewis de Mâle. It was imperative that he should
strike a blow on behalf of an authority that might before long be his
own, and the French nobles were eager to suppress a civic revolt which
set such a bad example to their own vassals. A large feudal force was
collected to advance to the relief of Oudenarde, and the young king
himself, who was keenly interested in military affairs, accompanied the
army in person. Filled with the confidence inspired by their recent
victory, the Flemings [Sidenote: Battle of Roosebek.] quitted their
strong position and advanced to attack a stronger and better-armed force
than their own. On the field of Roosebek they were enveloped by the
converging wings of the French army, and were almost annihilated. The
corpse of Philip van Artevelde was found at the bottom of a heap of the
slain. A prompt advance must have resulted in the capture of Ghent, but
the French were satisfied with their success, and soon afterwards
withdrew. The chief sufferers were not the defeated Flemings, but the
_Maillotins_ of Paris. The victorious army was irresistible on its
return. Most of the leaders of the recent rebellion suffered death. The
gates of the city were thrown down, and its municipal liberties were
abolished.
With the suppression of the bourgeoisie all opposition to the regents
seemed to be at an end. But in 1388 occurred a dramatic revolution which
is a strange parallel to contemporary events in England. Charles VI.
declared himself to be of age, dismissed his uncles to [Sidenote: Rule
of the Marmousets.] their estates, and intrusted the Government to men
who had been trained in the service of his father. For the next four
years these _Marmousets_ or parvenus, as the nobles scornfully called
them, ruled with equal capacity and moderation. Suddenly, in 1392, came
another extraordinary change in the course of events. One of the ablest
of the royal ministers was the Constable, Olivier de Clisson, a follower
and fellow-countryman of Bertrand du Guesclin. An attempt was made to
assassinate him in the streets of Paris, and the would-be murderers
sought refuge with the duke of Brittany, who had a quarrel of his own
with the Constable. Charles VI. was furious, and led an army towards
Brittany to exact vengeance. But his health was already [Sidenote:
Insanity of Charles VI.] undermined by precocious debauchery and the
premature possession of power. On the journey he became so violently
insane that he had to be kept in forcible restraint. He lived for thirty
years after this, but never recovered the complete control of his
faculties, though he had intervals of comparative lucidity. As a rule he
was worst in the hot weather of summer and autumn, and recovered to some
extent in the colder months of winter and early spring. It would
probably have been better for France if his insanity had been complete
and permanent, as in that case it would have been necessary to make
regular provision for the regency. As it was, the government was still
carried on in the king’s name; but it was notorious that even when he
was at his best he had lost all strength of will, and was the obedient
slave of whoever had control of his person at the time. These conditions
led to that struggle for the exercise of power which brought such
innumerable woes to France in the next half century.
The duke of Burgundy was with the king at the time of the seizure, and
took prompt advantage of it to recover the authority which he had been
compelled to relinquish [Sidenote: Origin of party feuds.] four years
before. By so doing he excited the bitter animosity of Louis of Orleans,
the king’s younger brother, who clamoured that he was ousted from his
proper position by his uncle. From this rivalry arose in the course of
time the famous factions of Burgundians and Armagnacs, whose quarrels
distracted France and rendered the country an easy prey to the foreign
invaders. It would be useless and wearisome to trace in detail the
frequent fluctuations of success and failure, but it is important to
form a clear idea of the position of the two antagonists, and of the
interests which became involved in their disputes.
Philip the Bold or the Rash (_le Hardi_) was the youngest and favourite
son of King John, and had been taken prisoner with his father at
Poitiers. To reward his bravery [Sidenote: Philip of Burgundy.] and
devotion John gave him the duchy of Burgundy when it fell in to the
Crown in 1361 on the death of Philip de Rouvre. But the greatness of the
house was mainly due to a lucky marriage. Charles V. procured for his
brother the hand of Margaret, the only child of Lewis de Mâle, count of
Flanders, Artois, Nevers, Rethel, and Burgundy. When Lewis died, in
1383, these territories came through his wife to Philip, who became at
once one of the wealthiest and most powerful princes in Europe. The
object of Charles V. in promoting this marriage had been to connect
these fiefs, and especially Flanders, more closely with France. The
ultimate result was precisely the reverse; the connection of Burgundy
with France was weakened. Commercial interests tended to sever Flanders
from France and to attach it to England (see p. 71). These interests
proved stronger than feudal and family ties. Instead of Flanders
following Burgundy, Burgundy followed Flanders. Thus, although the duke
of Burgundy was the first peer of France, and as count of Flanders was
doubly a peer, yet he found himself more and more detached from France,
and impelled to play the part of a foreign and independent prince. It is
important to remember that part of Flanders and Franche Comté, or the
county of Burgundy, were imperial fiefs, and had no legal connection
with France. As time went on this non-French element in the position of
the house of Burgundy was destined to be greatly extended. In 1385 an
important double marriage was concluded with the Wittelsbach count of
Holland, Hainault, and Zealand, the son of Lewis the Bavarian (see p.
108). The son of Count Albert, afterwards William VI. (1404-1417), was
to marry Philip’s daughter, Margaret; while Philip’s eldest son, John of
Nevers, was to marry Albert’s daughter, another Margaret. It was to
strengthen this alliance, which two generations later brought these
Wittelsbach possessions to the house of Burgundy, that Philip negotiated
the marriage of Charles VI. to a princess of another branch of the
Wittelsbach house, Isabel of Bavaria—a marriage that was fraught with
anything but blessing to France. Another imperial fief, Brabant, which
was held by the aunt of Philip’s wife, passed in 1406 to his second son,
Antony, and ultimately to the main Burgundian branch. This gradual
absorption of adjacent provinces by the Valois dukes gave to what came
to be known as the Netherlands, or the Low Countries, their first
semblance of political unity.
The young Louis of Orleans was, in territorial power and prospects,
quite insignificant by the side of his uncle and rival. His great
ambition was to redress this [Sidenote: Louis of Orleans.] obvious
inequality. At every opportunity he induced his brother to alienate
domain-lands to him in spite of the protests of the _Marmousets_. By
these grants and by purchase he obtained the duchy of Orleans, which
Charles V. had promised should never be severed from the Crown,
Perigord, a part of Angoumois, and the counties of Valois, Dreux, and
Blois. His marriage in 1386 with Valentina Visconti, daughter of Gian
Galeazzo, which gave to his descendants a claim upon Milan in later
times, brought to him a million francs as dowry, but in the way of
territory only the town of Asti in Lombardy, and the county of Vertus in
Champagne. Louis even competed with his uncle for territories in the
Netherlands, and in 1401 he agreed to purchase Luxemburg from Wenzel.
But this proved a complete fiasco, and Luxemburg was ultimately absorbed
in the Burgundian dominions. One discreditable advantage in the struggle
was gained by the duke of Orleans. He became the paramour of the queen,
Isabella of Bavaria, and by this means he not only secured her support,
but also the influence which she still retained over her unhappy
husband.
Early in the fifteenth century changes took place in the personages of
the drama, though its action was only slightly changed by them. Philip
the Bold died in 1404, leaving three sons. The second son, Antony of
Rethel, succeeded his great-aunt in the duchy of Brabant and Limburg,
and married Elizabeth of Luxemburg, a grand-daughter of the Emperor
Charles IV. The youngest son, Philip, received only the county of
Nevers. With the exception of Nevers and Rethel, the whole magnificent
inheritance [Sidenote: John the Fearless.] of Philip and Margaret passed
to their eldest son, John, who also succeeded to the position of
protagonist in the party strife in France. John had been taken prisoner
by the Turks at the famous battle of Nicopolis (1396), and the reckless
courage which he displayed on that occasion gained for him the name of
the Fearless (Jean sans Peur). He displayed the same impulsiveness in
politics as in the field, and this led him into criminal blunders, and
ultimately to a violent death. Like all politicians of the time, he
sought to use marriage as a means of strengthening his position. His
eldest daughter was married to the duke of Guienne or dauphin, and the
king’s second son, John of Touraine, was betrothed to the daughter of
his brother-in-law, William VI. of Holland.
In 1407 Louis of Orleans was assassinated in Paris; and after some
hesitation, John the Fearless avowed himself to be the instigator of the
murder, and put forward [Sidenote: Murder of Orleans.] arguments to
justify it. Instead of putting an end to the quarrel, this act proved
the occasion for civil war. The sons of the duke of Orleans deemed it a
sacred duty to avenge their father’s death, and they were encouraged by
the support of all opponents of Burgundy. As they were young and
inexperienced, the practical leadership of the party was undertaken by
Bernard of Armagnac, the father-in-law of the young Charles of Orleans,
and himself the son-in-law of the duke of Berri, the only surviving
uncle of the king. From him the party derived the name by which it is
usually known both to contemporaries and to history.
The strife of parties had its origin in a purely personal rivalry for
power, but it gradually came to absorb all the elements of social,
political, and ecclesiastical conflict in France. Louis of Orleans was
the [Sidenote: Burgundians and Armagnacs.] champion of the past, of
feudal independence and privileges. His party, especially after his
death, included most of the noble families of France. Louis had been the
supporter of Richard II. against Henry IV., of Wenzel against his rival
the Elector Palatine Rupert, of the Avignon popes against the policy of
neutrality in the great schism. The Burgundians were forced to espouse
the opposite side in these disputes. They clamoured for financial
economy and encouraged the growth of municipal liberties. Flemish
interests impelled them to maintain a good understanding with Henry IV.
after his successful usurpation. In the matter of the schism they urged
the ‘way of cession,’ and thus gained the support of the University of
Paris. Orleans had alienated this powerful corporation by encouraging
the rival schools of Orleans, Montpellier, and Toulouse. The University
of Paris showed such devotion to the Burgundian cause that Jean Petit,
one of the leaders of the Sorbonne, marshalled all the hackneyed
arguments in favour of tyrannicide in order to justify the murder of
Orleans. But this went too far for doctors of more tender conscience,
and at Constance Jean Gerson, the chancellor of the University, pressed
for the condemnation of Jean Petit’s discourse, and thereby incurred the
bitter enmity of John the Fearless (see p. 218). The great strength of
the Burgundians lay in the enthusiastic support of the Parisians; the
duke at once rewarded and conciliated their support by restoring in 1409
the municipal institutions which had been abolished in 1383.
The war has also a geographical as well as a social significance. The
west and south were Armagnac, while the north and east of France were
Burgundian. This opposition was of long standing, and rested upon a
substantial difference of race. In the south-west the strongest element
of the population was the Romanised Celts; whereas in the north-east the
Teutonic or Frankish race preponderated. For a long time, especially
since the Albigensian crusades, the south had been reduced to
subservience by the north, and in the Armagnac party it strove to shake
off some of the fetters that had been imposed upon it.
In thus roughly estimating the significance of the civil strife in
France, it is important to avoid being too precise and dogmatic. It was
not so much a struggle of principles as a personal quarrel, in which
certain principles became involved. It is to some extent misleading to
speak of the Armagnacs as an aristocratic, and the Burgundians as a
popular or bourgeois party. The parties did not set out with definite
character and policy; but circumstances and momentary exigencies forced
them to seek allies where they could, and these allies could only be
gained by at least a professed devotion to their interests. The age also
is full of contradictions, which make it the more difficult to draw
definite distinctions. The dukes of Burgundy were the champions of
municipal privilege in Paris; in Flanders it was their first business to
restrict the independence of the cities. Philip the Bold declaimed
against the extravagance of the government when he was excluded from it,
and promised the people relief from taxation. But he was personally
extravagant, his rule was at least as expensive as that of his
opponents, and he died so profoundly in debt that his widow had to
undergo a ceremonial proof of bankruptcy in order to secure the
inheritance of her children from the disappointed creditors. Again,
Louis of Orleans is apparently the champion of a reactionary feudalism;
but in another aspect he is a disciple of the Renaissance, and a patron
of the new learning that was to overthrow the essential ideas of
mediæval feudalism. In this, as in other respects, he may be
instructively compared with an Englishman who was almost his
contemporary, Humphrey of Gloucester.
It was fortunate for France that in the early stages of the quarrel
little danger was to be feared from England. The minority of Richard II.
was disturbed at first by the social discontent which led to the rising
of [Sidenote: Relations with England.] 1381, and afterwards by party and
personal jealousies which almost produced a great civil war. When
Richard II. at last took the reins of government into his own hands and
effected a temporary pacification, he began to prepare for his dramatic
revenge upon his opponents, and for that attempt to establish a despotic
power which resulted in his deposition. The result was that during his
reign the war with France languished. Truces were frequently made and
prolonged, and during the interval of nominal hostility no operations of
importance were undertaken on either side. In 1396 Richard II. actually
paid a visit to Paris, and was betrothed to Isabella, daughter of
Charles VI. The revolution of 1399, which gave the English crown to
Henry IV., seemed likely to bring about a resumption of hostilities,
especially when Henry married the dowager duchess of Brittany, and thus
renewed that connection with the house of Montfort which had in the past
given the English an easy entry into France. But for some years Henry
IV. sat but insecurely upon his throne, and the struggle against
successive rebellions left him little time or inclination for an
aggressive foreign policy. It was not until French parties were led by
their irreconcilable enmity to each other to invite English intervention
that the prolonged suspension of hostilities between the two countries
came to an end.
The murder of the duke of Orleans exasperated, but at the same time
intimidated the other princes of France, and their terror was increased
by the punishment which the duke of Burgundy inflicted in 1408 upon the
citizens of Liége for a revolt against their bishop. In spite of the
pitiful entreaties of the widowed Valentina, John the Fearless was
allowed to retain supreme control of the government through his
son-in-law the dauphin, who was now put forward to represent his father;
and the young duke of Orleans and his brother had to undergo the shame
of a formal reconciliation with their father’s murderer. It was not till
1410 that the first league of princes was formed to overthrow the
Burgundian [Sidenote: Civil war breaks out in 1410.] ascendency. It
included the dukes of Berri and Bourbon, Louis II. of Anjou, the titular
king of Sicily, the sons of Louis of Orleans, and the counts of
Clermont, Alençon, and Armagnac. The duke of Brittany, who had
previously been the ally of Burgundy, also joined the league because a
daughter of John the Fearless had married the count of Penthièvre, on
whom the claims of the rival house of Blois had devolved. It would take
too long to trace the actual progress of the war or to enumerate the
hollow truces and treaties by which it was occasionally interrupted.
Neither party could claim any monopoly of patriotism, and both appealed
successfully to England for assistance. In 1411 aid was sent to the
Burgundians, and in the next year to their opponents. This was not due,
as has often been asserted, to a politic desire to prolong the civil war
in France, but was the result of a change of parties in England. In
1411, when the Burgundian alliance was concluded, the Prince of Wales
and the Beauforts were in power. In January 1412 their influence was
undermined by an obscure intrigue, Henry Beaufort resigned the
chancellorship, and the Prince of Wales, who had incurred his father’s
displeasure, quitted the court. The government fell into the hands of
Archbishop Arundel and Thomas of Clarence, Henry IV.’s second son, and
they reversed the foreign policy of their predecessors. Clarence in
person commanded the expedition, which was despatched to help the
Armagnacs, but did little except ravage Normandy and part of Guienne.
The chief interest in the struggle lay in the efforts of the Armagnacs
to get possession of Paris, the stronghold of Burgundian influence. In
1411 the princes advanced to besiege the city. The exigencies of the
defence gave a temporary ascendency to the lower class of the citizens,
who were the most enthusiastic partisans of Burgundy, and among them the
lead was taken by the powerful guild [Sidenote: The Cabochiens in
Paris.] of butchers. One Caboche, a flayer, acquired an unenviable
eminence which gave to his associates the name of _Cabochiens_. For two
years they were all-powerful in the city, and their history is marked by
one of those extraordinary contrasts which are more familiar in the
history of France than in any other country. On the one hand, their rule
was disgraced by the brutal atrocities of a Paris mob at its worst. On
the other hand, there must have been among their leaders men of virtue
and capacity, who saw clearly the administrative evils under which
France was suffering. On May 25, 1413, was issued the famous Cabochian
ordinance, containing 258 articles, which has been warmly praised by
more than one eminent historian as a wise and far-seeing measure of
reform. But the authors of the ordinance hardly acted in its spirit, and
it was so short-lived that it has no practical importance.
The horrors of Cabochian rule excited a strong reaction among the higher
class of citizens, and the Armagnacs were [Sidenote: Armagnac victory in
1413.] enabled by their aid to enter Paris. The great ordinance was
revoked in September 1413, and all offices were transferred to members
of the victorious faction. The dauphin, who had quarrelled with his
father-in-law, joined his former opponents, and this enabled them to
claim that they were governing in the king’s name and interest. In 1414
the Armagnacs assumed the offensive, drove the duke of Burgundy from one
town after another, and even invaded Artois. Before Arras a treaty was
concluded which left Paris and the persons of the queen and the dauphin
in the hands of the Armagnacs. John the Fearless, chagrined by his
defeat, and excluded from all political influence, resumed those
relations with the English to which he was impelled by Flemish
interests. Henry V., who as Prince of Wales had shown himself disposed
to aid the Burgundians in 1411, was now on the throne. He was free from
some of the difficulties which had made his father [Sidenote: English
invasion of France.] pursue a peace policy, and the condition of France
offered him an irresistible temptation to renew the war. In 1415 he
formally announced his intention of asserting his claim to the crown of
France, and laid siege to Harfleur. The Armagnacs were by no means
dismayed by the news. The militant instincts of an aristocracy were
strong among them, and a victory over the English invaders would
complete their triumph over the Burgundians. A feudal army was hastily
collected under the constable d’Albret, and the offers of aid from Paris
and other communes were haughtily rejected. The expected success was to
be for the party, not for the nation. But the military ability of the
nobles was not equal to their exclusiveness. A slight exertion would
have relieved Harfleur, but the town was allowed to surrender on
September [Sidenote: Fall of Harfleur.] 22. This was a considerable gain
to the English; for Harfleur, though less defensible than Calais, was
far better suited for aggressive purposes. It was the real key to
Normandy, whereas the strength of Calais lay in its isolation. But the
English army had suffered heavily during the siege, and prudence seemed
to dictate that it should either return to England or spend the winter
in Harfleur. Henry, however, trusting to the incapacity and disunion of
his enemies, decided to lead his diminished army, not more than fifteen
thousand at most, through a hostile country to Calais. The bridges on
the Somme had been broken down, and the English made for the famous ford
of Blanchetaque, where Edward III. had effected his crossing before the
battle of Crecy. A prisoner declared that the ford was guarded by six
thousand troops, and the English turned southwards to find another
crossing. One place after another was found to be impracticable, and the
army had passed Nesle before they discovered some marshy shallows which
gave them the desired passage. They thus escaped the trap into which
they had fallen, but their march had brought them to the south of the
French army, which in overwhelming numbers blocked the way to Calais. It
was necessary to fight or perish. In the [Sidenote: Battle of
Agincourt.] battle of Agincourt (October 25, 1415) the muddy state of
the ground, the reckless insubordination of the French nobles, and the
skill of the archers gave the English an extraordinarily easy victory.
The losses on the French side were enormously increased by a massacre of
the prisoners, which Henry ordered when the appearance of some
camp-followers was taken as the approach of a new army. Among the slain
were the constable d’Albret, the duke of Alençon, and the two brothers
of John the Fearless, Antony of Brabant and Philip of Nevers. The duke
himself had refused to join his opponents, and his brothers only arrived
in time to share the defeat. The most important of the prisoners whose
lives had been spared were the young Charles of Orleans and the count of
Richemont, brother of the duke of Brittany. As far as Henry V. was
concerned, he gained no immediate advantage in France, except the
ability to continue his retreat. He hastened to Calais, and there
embarked for England.
The Armagnacs had destined for themselves all the glory of the expected
victory, and they had to endure all the shame of the defeat. The
Parisians openly exulted at [Sidenote: Continued party strife in
France.] the humiliation of their oppressors, and prepared to welcome
John the Fearless, who advanced as far as Lagni on his way to the
capital. But the duke had lost much of the energy of his younger days.
Bernard of Armagnac, who had played no part in recent events, hurried up
from the south and took prompt measure to suppress the Burgundian
sympathies of the citizens. He only arrived just in time. The dauphin,
worn out by debauchery of every kind, died on December 18, and the heir
of the throne was now John of Touraine, who was the creature of the
Burgundian party. If John the Fearless had succeeded in reaching Paris,
his hold on the government would have been secure. But he had lost his
opportunity, and retired after four months of absolute inactivity. His
enemies called him in derision John of Lagni.
In 1416 there was no renewal of the English invasion, and the attention
of Henry VI. was fully occupied with diplomacy. Sigismund had quitted
Constance with the professed intention of putting an end to the
international quarrels which impeded the work of the council. But his
visits to France and to England failed to effect the desired result.
Their chief result was to ally Sigismund with Henry V. and to bring
about a better understanding between the latter and the duke of
Burgundy, who had found it difficult to maintain any alliance with
England after the death of his two brothers at Agincourt. Meanwhile
Armagnac continued a reign of terror in Paris. The citizens were
disarmed, the chains and barriers in the streets were removed, and a
strict system of espionage enabled the government to detect and punish
any attempt to rebel. The atrocities of the _Cabochiens_ were equalled
by their opponents, and without the excuse that could be offered for the
brutal action of a mob. The one difficulty in Armagnac’s way was the
fact that the dauphin John was in the hands of the duke of Burgundy at
Valenciennes. But in April 1417 the dauphin died so opportunely that
Armagnac was suspected of having brought it about. The only surviving
prince, Charles, was the son-in-law of Louis II. of Anjou, and had been
brought up in bitter hostility to the Burgundians. The one influence
over him that might stand in the way of Armagnac was that of his mother.
In a lucid interval Charles VI. was induced to notice and resent his
wife’s notorious misconduct, and Isabel of Bavaria was sent into
disguised captivity at Tours. Indignant at this insult, she forgot the
quarrel of a lifetime, sought the alliance of John the Fearless, and
escaped from Tours with his aid. This encouraged the Burgundians to
fresh exertions. The queen claimed to act as regent during her husband’s
‘occupation,’ as it was euphemistically called. At Amiens she and the
duke of Burgundy established a council and a parliament in opposition to
those in Paris, which were ‘subjected to the usurpers of the royal
power.’ The civil war was carried on in a series of petty combats over
the northern provinces, in which each side was equally discredited by
acts of the grossest brutality.
The renewed outbreak of civil war encouraged Henry V. to enter Normandy
again in 1417. Little resistance was offered to him, except at Caen, and
a truce with [Sidenote: English in Normandy.] the duke of Brittany gave
him a secure hold upon north-western France. The rapid success of the
foreign invasion gave rise to negotiations between the French factions,
and a treaty was on the verge of conclusion in May 1418, when it was
broken off by Armagnac and his brutal colleague, Tannegui du Châtel.
This was more than the Parisians could endure; the gates were opened to
admit a body [Sidenote: Burgundians seize Paris.] of Burgundian cavalry,
and the citizens rose with cries of ‘Burgundy and peace.’ Armagnac was
discovered and slain, but the dauphin succeeded in escaping to Melun,
where he was joined by Tannegui and other followers, who had made a bold
but unsuccessful attempt to hold out in the Bastile. The revolution in
Paris gave to the Burgundians the ascendency in the north, but the
dauphin continued to call himself lieutenant-general for his father, and
set up a council and a parliament in Poitiers.
One result of the revolution was to impose the burden of national
defence upon the duke of Burgundy. The Parisians, although Burgundian,
had not ceased to be Frenchmen, and their clamour compelled the duke to
take measures against the English. He escorted the insane king to take
the oriflamme from St. Denis, and he established a camp at Beauvais.
[Sidenote: Fall of Rouen.] But he did nothing to relieve Rouen, which
was offering a heroic resistance to Henry V., and the town was forced to
capitulate on January 19, 1419. A systematic government was set up in
Normandy as a dependency of the English crown.
The news of the fall of Rouen roused the national spirit of France. The
two parliaments of Paris and Poitiers combined to demand internal peace
in the face of [Sidenote: Negotiations between the factions.] the
foreign foe. On May 14 a truce for three months was concluded. But the
English successes continued, and the capture of Pontoise enabled them to
threaten Paris. The pressure of imminent danger forced the rival
factions into closer relations with each other, and it was agreed that a
meeting should take place between the dauphin and John the Fearless for
the final settlement of all differences. This was a great blow to the
extreme Armagnacs, who dreaded the loss of power and the vengeance of
Burgundy. Tannegui du Châtel and his associates determined by a
desperate act to put an end to all [Sidenote: Murder of John of
Burgundy.] prospects of pacification. The interview took place on
September 10, 1419, on the bridge at Montereau, and John the Fearless
was treacherously assassinated by the dauphin’s followers. Whether
Charles himself was aware of the plot beforehand is open to question,
but by continued association with the murderers he made himself an
accomplice after the event.
The murder of John the Fearless was a fatal event for France. It revived
the unity of the Burgundian party, which had been rapidly breaking up,
and for the moment [Sidenote: Treaty of Troyes, 1420.] it subordinated
all sentiment of nationality to the desire for revenge. The young duke
Philip vowed that the dauphin, whom he regarded as his father’s
assassin, should never sit upon the throne of France. Isabel of Bavaria,
who had never loved her youngest son, did not scruple to join the duke
in a close alliance with the English. The treaty of Troyes (May 21,
1420) excluded the dauphin from the succession, arranged that Henry V.
should marry Katharine of France, that he and his descendants should be
the heirs of Charles VI., and that Henry should be regent during the
lifetime of his father-in-law. Normandy and all other English conquests
were to be reunited to the French crown on Henry’s accession, and he
swore to observe the laws and customs of France. Paris, already
dominated by Burgundian partisans, and exposed to the danger of English
attack from Pontoise, could make no resistance to an arrangement which
proposed to subject France to an English dynasty.
The treaty of Troyes was a treaty with one of the factions in France; it
was not a treaty with the French nation. In order to carry it out it was
necessary to enforce [Sidenote: War in northern France.] the submission
of the Armagnacs, who had the support of almost all the provinces south
of the Loire, and also held a number of strong places north of that
river. The reduction of the latter was the first task of the English and
Burgundians. Some of them surrendered readily, but Melun held out for
four months, and with its fall the campaign of 1420 ended. Henry V.
returned to England, but was recalled by the news of a serious reverse.
Thomas of Clarence, who had been left in command, was defeated and slain
by a combined force of French and Scots at Baugé in Anjou (March 23,
1421), and a rising in favour of the dauphin took place in Picardy.
Henry’s return restored victory to the English arms. While Philip of
Burgundy put down the malcontents in Picardy, the English laid siege to
Meaux, the chief Armagnac stronghold in northern France. With its
surrender (March 22, 1422) the supremacy of the allies to the north of
the Loire seemed to be assured. A few adventurers, at the head of
mercenary forces, remained to pillage the country, but there was no
longer any centre of organised resistance to the English. Their army was
preparing to cross the river when it was recalled by the news that Henry
V. had died of dysentery, at the early [Sidenote: Deaths of Henry V. and
Charles VI.] age of thirty-four (August 31, 1422). Seven weeks later,
the unfortunate Charles VI. was also carried to the grave, accompanied
by the tears of his subjects, who remembered that if he had never ruled,
so he had never oppressed them. None of his own family were present at
the funeral, and the only mourner of princely rank was the Duke of
Bedford, now regent of France for the infant Henry VI., who was solemnly
proclaimed King of France and England.
For several years after 1422 there were two kings of France—Henry VI.,
represented by his uncle Bedford, with Paris as his capital; and Charles
VII., a youth of twenty years of age, at Bourges. The position
[Sidenote: Bedford and Charles VII.] of the latter had been completely
changed by the treaty of Troyes. He was no longer the mere head of an
unscrupulous and discredited faction, but the leader of a national
cause. This washed out the stain of the murder of Montereau. There was
hardly a French nation as yet, otherwise Henry V. had never conquered
Normandy, but there was certainly a sentiment of nationality. A duke of
Burgundy, half of whose possessions lay outside France, might be
comparatively free from such a sentiment, but his French subjects were
not. From the very first the result of the struggle was certain. All the
permanent influences were in favour of Charles and against England. Only
two things were necessary to secure the victory of Charles VII.—the
national sentiment must be kindled into a blaze, which was done by
Jeanne Darc, and Burgundy must be detached from England. This was sooner
or later inevitable, both from the natural jarring of interests and from
the pressure brought to bear upon the duke by his own followers. Henry
VI. wore the crown of France, partly by virtue of the Burgundian
alliance, and partly because the feeling of national union had been
overpowered for a time by domestic feuds and by the misery which they
had brought to the country. Directly this double basis collapsed, the
English power fell. That it lasted as long as it did was due to the
difference between the respective leaders. John of Bedford was a great
soldier and a great diplomatist; there was no one on the French side who
equalled him in either capacity. Charles VII. may have had scant justice
dealt to him by historians, and his latest biographer would have us
believe that he was a model of kingly virtues. But these virtues, such
as they were, were developed by adversity. At the time when he assumed
the royal title, he was too young to have much experience of government,
his training had been against him, and he had been fatally compromised
by the criminal violence of his associates. He was not personally a
coward, but he disliked war, and he disliked publicity. Two important
cities—Bourges and Poitiers—remained faithful to him, but he preferred
the more congenial solitude of Loches and Chinon. He had excellent
advisers. The council and parliament which he established at Poitiers
comprised many of the ablest members of those institutions who had left
Paris in 1418. So far as it was possible to conduct a civil government
during the war, it was conducted well. But against these civilian
advisers must be set the influence of brutal adventurers, such as
Tannegui du Châtel, whose services he could not dispense with, and whom
he was too feeble to restrain. Their gradual disappearance enabled him
at last to free himself from the Armagnac party, and to render
conspicuous services to France. But for the first seven years of his
reign he had to contend with inferior instruments against superior
force.
Geographically, France was fairly evenly divided. Paris, with the Ile de
France, Normandy, Picardy, Champagne, and all the Burgundian fiefs,
together with Western Guienne and Gascony, recognised [Sidenote:
Division of France.] Henry VI. Maine and Anjou were a battleground
between parties. Their duke, Louis III., was absent in Italy, engaged in
the effort to secure the succession in Naples. His mother—Yolande of
Aragon—was the mother-in-law of Charles VII., and an influential
personage at his court. Charles could count, in the first place, upon
the provinces which he had held in fief before his father’s
death—Touraine, Dauphiné, Berri, and Poitou. Orleans, whose duke was
still a prisoner in England, was loyal, and so were Auvergne, Lyons,
Bourbon, Languedoc, and the eastern parts of Guienne and Gascony. The
duke of Brittany was doubtful. He was intimately connected with both
parties. He had married Charles VII.’s sister, but he was the nephew
through his mother of the first duke of Burgundy, and that mother had
been the second wife of Henry IV. of England. His family was under great
obligations to England, but his subjects were, for the most part, averse
to the English alliance; and his brother—Arthur of Richemont—had been
one of Henry V.’s prisoners at Agincourt. For the moment the attitude of
John V. was decided by a foolish attempt on the part of the Armagnac
leaders to excite a revolt in Brittany in favour of the count of
Penthièvre. This drove the duke, in 1423, to acknowledge Henry VI. and
to make a treaty with the dukes of Bedford and Burgundy. At the same
time, Bedford tried to strengthen the ties between Burgundy and England
by marrying Philip’s sister Anne. There were three provinces—Lorraine,
Savoy, and Provence—which were not French, but for many years had been
involved by their geography in French politics. Provence belonged to the
duke of Anjou, and was certain, sooner or later, to support Charles VII.
Amadeus VIII. of Savoy was the uncle of the duke of Burgundy, but held a
neutral position, and tried to play the part of mediator. Charles of
Lorraine had been an ardent Burgundian partisan, and had been appointed
constable in 1418 by John the Fearless. But since then he had been
gained over by Yolande, and induced to marry his only daughter to her
second son, Réné.
The actual military operations were not, for some time, of first-rate
importance. There was no campaign on a large scale, and only two battles
which deserve mention. A few places in the north, notably Guise and
[Sidenote: Campaigns of 1423-24.] Ivry, held out for Charles VII., and
Picardy was always ready to revolt. Important assistance was rendered by
Scotland, the permanent ally of France against England. Buchan, a Scot,
was appointed constable of France, and the earl of Douglas, who brought
a number of adventurers, was created count of Touraine. In 1423 a mixed
French and Scottish army was defeated by the English and Burgundians at
Crevant. In 1424 a more important engagement took place. The English had
laid siege to Ivry, and a great effort was made to relieve the garrison.
Bedford in person met the relieving army at Verneuil, and inflicted a
crushing defeat upon them. Douglas, Buchan, and a number of French
nobles were slain; Maine was completely reduced, and the remaining
fortresses in Picardy surrendered.
At this juncture Bedford’s progress was arrested, and his whole design
was threatened with ruin by the action of his brother, Humphrey of
Gloucester, whose reckless selfishness nearly effected a complete
rupture [Sidenote: Gloucester quarrels with Burgundy.] with Burgundy.
The dearest aim of Philip the Good was to absorb the dominions in the
Netherlands of the two collateral branches of his house.[11] Holland,
Hainault, and Zealand had now passed, by the death of William VI., to
his only daughter, Jacqueline. Another of Philip’s uncles, Antony of
Brabant, had left two sons, John IV. and Philip. The duke of Burgundy
had contrived to unite these two lines into one by marrying Jacqueline
to John IV. of Brabant. But the marriage was inharmonious, Jacqueline
fled from her husband, and appealed for aid to the duke of Gloucester.
Philip was infuriated when he learned that Gloucester had actually
married Jacqueline, having obtained a dispensation from the old
anti-pope, Benedict XIII. A prolonged and intricate quarrel followed.
Gloucester claimed his wife’s territories and defied Philip, who
supported John of Brabant, to mortal combat. Bedford was in despair. He
endeavoured to pacify Philip by ceding to him the Picard towns of Roye,
Mondidier, and Péronne, and by allowing him to annex to Burgundy the
counties of Auxerre and Macon. Fortunately, Gloucester was as changeable
as he was rash and hot-tempered. He repudiated Jacqueline in order to
marry Eleanor Cobham, and Philip the Good was free to settle matters
with his cousin without being hampered by English intervention. But
Gloucester continued to put difficulties in Bedford’s way. He quarrelled
so violently with his uncle, Henry Beaufort, that Bedford was compelled
to return to England, where the task of peacemaker detained him from
December 1425 till the spring of 1427.
Meanwhile Philip of Burgundy had been nearly impelled by the conduct of
Gloucester to desert England and come to terms with Charles VII. One
difficulty in the way was removed by the dismissal from the court
[Sidenote: Quarrels at the court of Charles VII.] of Tannegui du Châtel
and the other accomplices of the assassination at Montereau. Philip had
declared that he would never pardon the murderers of his father, and the
negotiations with Burgundy enabled Yolande and the wiser advisers of
Charles VII. to procure their expulsion. The office of constable was
given to the count of Richemont, and this induced the duke of Brittany
to acknowledge Charles. The latter could now claim to be no longer the
champion of the Armagnacs, but a national king, and a reconciliation
with Burgundy seemed to be the natural and inevitable result of the
change. But the hopes of all patriotic Frenchmen were disappointed for a
time by Charles’s weakness of character. In his youth he was always
under the thumb of a favourite, and the favourite at this moment was
Pierre de Giac. Giac’s wife had been the mistress of John the Fearless,
and she had been employed to induce him, in spite of warnings, to keep
his appointment at Montereau. With such a record behind him, it was
natural that Giac should do all in his power to thwart the negotiations
with Burgundy. Richemont, who had just returned to Bourges from an
unsuccessful campaign in Normandy, was furious at the frustration of a
project on which the salvation of France depended. The favourite was
seized at night, condemned to a hasty trial, and drowned. A successor,
who incurred the displeasure of the rugged constable, was assassinated.
Charles VII. could not venture to punish those acts of violence, but he
refused to pardon or trust their instigator. As intimidation had failed,
Richemont tried a new way to effect his object. He introduced a new
favourite, George de la Tremouille, who proved the evil genius of the
king and of France for the next six years. La Tremouille became
all-powerful at court, but he turned against the patron to whom he owed
his advancement. Richemont was banished from Bourges, and a small civil
war broke out between his partisans and those of the favourite. The
condition of France seemed more hopeless than ever. The reconciliation
with Burgundy had failed; and, to make matters worse, the duke of
Brittany, left unaided to oppose the English, had made terms with them
at the end of 1427 and had become the vassal of Henry VI.
Meanwhile Bedford had succeeded, by persistent diplomacy, in removing
the difficulties that stood in his way. Henry Beaufort was gratified by
being allowed to receive the cardinal’s hat, which Henry V. had
forbidden, and was induced to leave England in order to head a crusade
against the Hussites in Bohemia. The quarrel between Gloucester and
Burgundy was terminated by the former’s marriage, and by the death in
1427 of Jacqueline’s lawful husband, John of Brabant, whose duchy passed
to his younger [Sidenote: Burgundian aggrandisement in the Netherlands.]
brother. Philip the Good might not be a very devoted ally, but no
opposition was to be expected from him as long as he was allowed to
swallow the Netherlandish provinces at will. His war with Jacqueline
continued until she undertook to acknowledge him as her heir in Holland,
Hainault, and Zealand, and to grant him the immediate administration of
these provinces as her mainbourg. Luxemburg was in the hands of
Elizabeth, widow of Philip’s uncle, Antony of Brabant. She was no
relation by blood to the house of Burgundy, and there were members of
her own family to whom the duchy ought to have passed, but Philip
succeeded in the end in securing possession of Luxemburg. Namur he
purchased from its count. The only provinces in the Netherlands which
were free from Burgundian domination were the duchy of Gelderland and
the bishoprics of Liége and Utrecht.
Burgundy being thus pacified, Bedford was encouraged by the mingled
folly and misfortunes of his opponents to make new exertions in France.
In 1428 he received [Sidenote: Siege of Orleans.] reinforcements under
the earl of Salisbury, and a regular campaign was planned instead of the
petty local war of partisans that had been carried on for the last four
years. It was determined to lay siege to Orleans, which was situated at
the elbow of the Loire, and constituted the key to southern France. Its
capture would involve the submission of Touraine, Berri, and Poitou, the
very heart of Charles VII.’s kingdom. The importance of the siege was
fully recognised, and desperate exertions were made both for the attack
and the defence. The English forces were not numerous enough to form a
complete blockade, but they gradually drew nearer and nearer, and their
engineering works were regarded as the masterpieces of the age. The
French attempted to cut off a large convoy of provisions, escorted by
Sir John Fastolf, but they were defeated in the battle of the Herrings.
This skirmish seemed likely to decide the fate of the city. The besieged
sent envoys to Philip of Burgundy, offering to surrender to him if the
English would withdraw. Philip was eager that the offer should be
accepted, but Bedford replied that after having beaten the bushes he
would not allow another to seize the birds. The duke was so indignant
that he ordered his own troops to retire, and thus a second blow was
struck at the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.
Meanwhile Charles VII., whose kingdom was at stake, was doing nothing.
Tremouille would not allow him to arrange terms with the constable, and
assistance from Scotland, which was urgently demanded, could not arrive
[Sidenote: Appearance of Jeanne Darc.] in time to save Orleans. It was
at this juncture that Jeanne Darc made her famous appearance at Chinon.
It is impossible, in a concise narrative, to do justice to the
extraordinarily dramatic episodes that followed in such rapid
succession. All that can be attempted is to tell the story of the chief
events in which Jeanne played her part, without endeavouring to discuss
her claim to supernatural guidance, or to throw any new light upon her
remarkable character and influence. Great efforts were made by the
courtiers to exclude her from the royal presence; but the impression she
had already made upon the common people, and the influence of Yolande of
Aragon, at last brought about the desired meeting. She gained the
confidence of the king by reassuring him about the legitimacy of his
birth, a matter on which he entertained not unnatural doubts, though he
had never communicated his misgivings to any one. After some delay, a
force was raised with which she entered Orleans on April 29, 1429. On
May 4 the attack upon the English [Sidenote: French successes in 1429.]
positions was commenced, and on May 8 the siege was raised. Jeanne
herself carried the great news to Charles VII. at Loches, and insisted
that he should accompany her to Rheims for his coronation, which had
never yet taken place. The indolent king and his courtiers were
reluctant to undertake a long and hazardous march through a country
which had long been held by the enemy, but the persistence of the
victorious maid carried the day. To the astonishment of Europe, the
French had suddenly become invincible. Jargeau was stormed, a large body
of English under Talbot and Fastolf was routed at Patay (June 18), and
one town after another opened its gates to the advancing army. In Troyes
it was determined to make a stand, but at the first assault the citizens
rose and compelled the garrison to surrender. On July 16 Rheims was
entered, and on the next day the coronation took place with the
accustomed formalities.
The daring and success of the march to Rheims made a profound
impression. Jeanne clamoured for an immediate advance upon Paris, and it
is probable that if she had had her way the capital would have fallen.
Bedford was in despair. In Normandy the opponents of English rule were
gaining ground, and the loyalty of the Parisians was doubtful. To obtain
an army he had to conclude his famous agreement with Cardinal Beaufort,
by which the troops which had been collected for the Hussite war were
diverted, much to the indignation of Martin V., to make war upon Charles
VII. In order to secure Paris, he had to appeal to the duke of Burgundy,
and to purchase his continued support by the cession of Meaux and by the
appointment of a Burgundian partisan to the office of captain of the
city. Fortunately for the English regent, there was treachery and
division in the royal camp. La Tremouille and his associates were eager
to destroy the ascendency which Jeanne was acquiring over the king. She
was known to have advised him to come to terms with the constable and to
free himself from evil advisers, and they felt that the triumph of
France would be dearly purchased at the cost of their own overthrow. And
although the younger leaders, such as Dunois, the bastard half-brother
of the duke of Orleans, were devoted to the heroine, the older
commanders were indignant at being controlled by a girl. Jeanne found
that she had to contend with a regular conspiracy, of which Charles VII.
himself, to his eternal shame, was a willing accomplice. Futile
negotiations with Burgundy provided a pretext for a delay which enabled
Bedford and Beaufort to bring up troops for the defence of Paris. But a
rising in Normandy compelled Bedford to retire northwards, and Jeanne at
last succeeded in inducing the royal forces to advance. Compiègne,
Senlis, and Beauvais surrendered in rapid succession. From Beauvais, the
bishop, Pierre Cauchon, was expelled as an English partisan, and he was
destined to take a terrible revenge for the injury. But at St. Denis,
Charles VII. refused to run any further risks, although his approach
would probably have induced the Parisians to rise. Losing all patience,
the maid attacked the fortifications with a volunteer force, but met
with her first repulse. She returned to St. Denis with the proposal to
cross the Seine and attempt a new attack on the right bank. To her
horrified amazement, the bridge had been destroyed by order of the royal
council. Against such despicable treachery it was impossible to contend.
Charles withdrew to the Loire and disbanded his army. Jeanne with
difficulty obtained leave to attack some of the smaller places on the
Loire, but after some successes she was driven back from La Charité, to
the undisguised relief of the courtiers.
In spite of these bitter disappointments, the French cause had made
immense strides in 1429. The attack on Orleans had been foiled, the
greater part of Champagne and Brie had been recovered, and the dormant
loyalty of the northern peoples had received a sudden stimulus. But
these successes had also served to give new vigour to the alliance
between Burgundy and England. Philip was no longer a loyal supporter of
Henry VI., but he was not prepared to acquiesce in a triumph of Charles
VII. that was obtained without his aid. Moreover, his greed for
territory was by no means satisfied, and he knew that as the English got
into difficulties the value of his aid would increase. Bedford was quite
willing to pay the price, and offered the investiture of Champagne. It
is true that the province was no longer in English hands, and that its
acceptance imposed upon Philip the necessity of recovering it from the
French. But Champagne was of superlative importance to the duke, because
it would serve to unite his two chief possessions—Flanders and the duchy
of Burgundy. He accepted the offer of the regent, and in 1430 the
Burgundian troops once more [Sidenote: Capture of Jeanne.] took the
field and laid siege to Compiègne. The news that one of her precious
conquests was threatened, roused Jeanne from the inaction in which she
had been kept against her will. Without authority from the king, she
collected a small band of devoted followers, and threw herself into the
besieged town. It was her last enterprise. A sortie which she headed was
repulsed, and she was cut off before she could regain the
fortifications. She was taken prisoner by the followers of John of
Luxemburg, a cadet of the house of St. Pol (May 24, 1430).
From the English point of view, the capture of Jeanne was insufficient.
The impression she had made must be [Sidenote: Her trial and death.]
effaced, and she herself must be discredited as well as punished. A
charge of heresy and witchcraft was equally suggested by the
superstition of the age and by the extravagant claims to supernatural
powers which Jeanne herself had put forward. It was natural for her
enemies to hold that these powers came not from above, but from Satan.
The university of Paris, which boasted itself the home of the highest
learning of the time, gave the first cue for persecution. They demanded
that she should be tried before the inquisition of faith, which had been
established in France by Innocent III., but had since fallen into
oblivion. But the university was not sufficiently under English
dictation, and they had a more suitable instrument to hand. The bank of
the Oise on which Jeanne had been captured was just within the bishopric
of Beauvais; and Pierre Cauchon, an exile from his diocese, and
ambitious of the archbishopric of Rouen, was at the beck and call of
Bedford. He demanded the surrender of the prisoner to his jurisdiction,
and undertook the necessary negotiations with John of Luxemburg and his
suzerain. In ordinary times Philip the Good might have preferred to
retain so valuable a prize; but his cousin, Philip of Brabant and
Limburg, had just died, and he was anxious to secure the succession. The
Nevers branch of his house had strong claims to a partition of the
inheritance; and as Bedford’s intervention might prove decisive, it was
imperative to avoid any quarrel with the English. The bargain was
quickly settled. John of Luxemburg carried his prisoner into Artois,
resigned her to his suzerain, and left to the duke of Burgundy the
disgrace of selling the champion of France to the foreigner. In November
1430 the shameful transaction was completed. Into the details of the
trial, with its arid scholasticism and its wanton brutality, it is
unnecessary to enter. The presiding judge was the bishop of Beauvais,
but he was guided throughout by Bedford and Cardinal Beaufort. A
condemnation was from the first a foregone conclusion, and the martyr
was burned in the old market-place of Rouen on May 28, 1431.
Meanwhile the war had been going on, and the allies had gained little by
the capture of their most formidable opponent. Even Compiègne held out
successfully [Sidenote: Character of the war.] through a six months’
siege. An Anglo-Burgundian army was defeated in Champagne, and Philip
was chagrined to see the prize on which he had confidently reckoned lost
to him for ever. In Normandy the English gained some successes, but
these were counterbalanced by the loss of Melun. In 1431 hostilities
were resumed in Champagne, Picardy, Artois, and Burgundy. It would be
tedious and useless to describe the innumerable skirmishes and sieges in
which, as a rule, only insignificant forces took part. With the
disappearance of Jeanne Darc all restraint upon the brutal instincts of
the soldiers had been removed. Most of the leaders were mercenary
adventurers who fought, not out of devotion to one side or the other,
but because their followers could only be kept together by plunder. The
atrocities committed by the French troops were the greatest obstacle to
the success of Charles VII. The people were everywhere inclined to
return to their allegiance, but they hesitated to trust their lives and
property to such defenders. The war was complicated by an important
dispute about the succession in Lorraine. On the death of Charles I. in
1431 the duchy was claimed by his son-in-law, Réné of Anjou, who was
already duke of Bar. But he was opposed by Antony of Vaudemont, a nephew
of the late duke, who maintained that Lorraine was a male fief. Charles
VII. sent assistance to his brother-in-law, while Philip the Good
espoused the cause of Vaudemont. The Burgundians gained a complete
victory in July 1431, when Réné was taken prisoner. But the Lorrainers
were hostile to the count of Vaudemont, and in the end the dispute was
compromised. Réné recovered his liberty, and his rival withdrew his
claims to the duchy on condition that his son Frederick should marry
Réné’s daughter, Yolande.
Bedford was fully conscious that the English cause was steadily losing
ground in France. He tried to stimulate the loyalty of the Parisians by
bringing over the young Henry VI. to be crowned in Paris. It was his
answer to the coronation ceremony of Rheims. But it failed to produce
the desired result. The French were indignant that the chief part in the
ceremony was taken by Cardinal Beaufort, and not by a native prelate.
The common people complained that there was no remission of taxes and no
release of prisoners. Even more serious was the growing alienation of
Burgundy. In 1432 occurred the death of Bedford’s wife, Anne [Sidenote:
Rupture between Bedford and Burgundy.] of Burgundy. She was popular with
the Parisians, whereas the regent was not, and she had always been a
mediator between her husband and her brother. To make matters worse,
within five months Bedford found a new bride in the person of Jacquetta
of Luxemburg, daughter of the count of St. Pol, and niece of the captor
of Joan of Arc. She was a vassal of Burgundy, and Philip was indignant
that she should make so important a marriage without his consent.
Cardinal Beaufort made vain attempts to effect a reconciliation between
the two dukes. They were induced to come to St. Omer, but the interview
did not take place, and the personal quarrel was never healed.
Meanwhile important events were taking place at the court of Charles
VII. The ill-feeling against the omnipotent favourite, La Tremouille,
had been steadily growing, and the queen’s mother, Yolande of Aragon,
organised a conspiracy for his overthrow. The conspirators acted in
[Sidenote: Fall of La Tremouille.] conjunction with the constable
Richemont, who sent some of his trusty Bretons to aid them, but wisely
abstained from interfering in person. The plot was successful. La
Tremouille was surprised in his bed, and was kept in close captivity
till he had ceased to be formidable. The king was terrified when he
heard the news, but was consoled when he learned that the dreaded
Richemont was not present. It was not till 1434 that Charles consented
to be reconciled to the constable, whose rough exterior and brusque
measures against former favourites had outweighed his loyal services to
the national cause. From this time a new era opened for France. The
Royal Council was reformed under the guidance of Yolande, and room was
found in it for some of those bourgeois ministers, to whom was due the
later reorganisation of the kingdom. Even Charles himself began to show
unwonted energy, a change which unsupported tradition has assigned to
the influence of his mistress, Agnes Sorel. French historians are never
tired of insisting that France owed its salvation in the fifteenth
century to two women, the one a saint and the other a sinner.
The quarrel between Bedford and Burgundy and the suppression of feuds
and jealousies at the court of Charles removed the most obvious
difficulties which had [Sidenote: Treaty of Arras, 1435.] hitherto
impeded a reconciliation between the French king and Philip the Good.
Strenuous negotiations resulted in an agreement that a congress should
meet at Arras in July 1435. The English were to be invited to accept
reasonable terms, and if they refused Philip was to do all in his power
to restore peace to the kingdom. The inevitable result of the congress
was easy to foresee. Beaufort and the English envoys rejected the first
French demand that Henry VI. should resign the crown of France, and
quitted Arras. It only remained to arrange matters with Philip, who was
in a position to dictate his own terms. It was the suzerain who sued for
pardon and the vassal who granted it. The duke demanded and received the
counties of Auxerre and Macon in perpetuity for himself and his heirs,
the towns on the river Somme, which on certain conditions might be
redeemed by the French king, and the recognition of his claims to the
county of Boulogne, which had been contested by the heirs of the late
duchess of Berri. In addition, Philip was to be freed from all homage
and subjection to Charles VII. during their common lifetime. If Charles
died first, Philip was to do homage to his successor; but if Philip died
first, his heir would become the vassal of Charles VII. On these
exorbitant conditions Philip agreed to forget all past wrongs, _i.e._
the death of his father, to which Charles virtually pleaded guilty, and
to enter into a defensive alliance against the English. The treaty,
which put an end to the long feud between Burgundians and Armagnacs, was
signed on September 21, 1435. A week earlier Bedford had died. He had
lived long enough to witness the collapse of the foundation on which the
edifice rested, to whose construction he had devoted all his abilities
and exertions.
Footnote 11:
See Appendix, Genealogical Table H.