death of the duke of Orleans,—how on the Thursday following his murder,
clothed in black, and with tears and every sign of grief, he accompanied
the dead body from the church of the Guillemins to that of the
Celestins! Weigh well, my lords, this treachery and dissimulation! O
Lord God, what tears and groans!!! O, Earth! how couldst thou bear such
wickedness? Open thy mouth, and swallow up all who commit such dreadful
sins.
‘Recollect, that on the ensuing Friday, at the hôtel of the duke of
Berry, in his presence and in that of the king of Sicily, our adversary
advanced towards the servants of the late duke of Orleans, entreating
them to make every inquiry after the author of this murder, and begging
them to recommend him to the duchess of Orleans and to her children:
then the three noble persons having conferred together, the duke of
Berry declared the request was proper, and that they would exert
themselves as much as possible to discover the person who had committed
this atrocious act.
‘O, duke of Burgundy! thou promisedst to do this, by the mouth of my
lord of Berry, whereas thou didst the worst thou could; for, not
satisfied with having caused the murder of his body, thou seekest to
destroy the reputation of the defunct. Thou promisedst to seek most
diligently after the murderer, while thou knewest it was thyself that
wast the criminal.
‘Now, my lords, consider well, that after a resolution had been taken to
seek after the author of this crime, our adversary, the duke of
Burgundy, conscious of his guilt, confessed that it was he who had
caused the death of the duke of Orleans. When he made this confession on
his knees to the king and my lord the duke of Berry, he affirmed, that
what he had done was by the instigation of the devil; and certainly in
this instance he spoke the truth, for he was urged to it by jealousy and
ambition.
‘O, my lords! weigh well this confession, and how our adversary
contradicts himself,—for when he first confessed his guilt, he said he
had been instigated to it by the devil; but afterward he commands it to
be argued, that he committed so atrocious a deed legally and
justifiably. If he feel no shame for his wickedness, he ought at least
to be sensible of his thus meanly contradicting himself. Consider also,
that he was desirous of concealing his crime; and God knows, that if his
deed had been of that worth as has been advanced for him, he would have
gloried in having so done, and not have wished to remain undiscovered as
the perpetrator. And why did he own his guilt? Because it could no
longer be concealed. That this was the cause is apparent; for when he
perceived that it must be known, he fled most precipitately from Paris,
like to one in despair. He might have said, with Judas the traitor,
‘Peccavi tradens sanguinem justum.’
‘O Philip, duke of Burgundy! wert thou now alive, thou wouldst not have
approved the conduct of our adversary, but wouldst have said thy son had
degenerated. Thou wert surnamed The Bold,—but he was always fearful and
suspicious, consequently a traitor. Thou mightst have truly applied to
him what is written in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
‘Cur temptavit sathanas cor tuum mentiri te Spiritui Sancto? non es
mentitus hominibus sed Deo.’
‘My fifth argument is grounded on the falsehood of the declarations of
our opponent, that he had caused the death of the duke of Orleans with
the purest intentions; for, on the contrary, he committed this crime
through lust of power, and to gain greater authority over the kingdom,
and also to possess himself of the royal treasury, that he might more
largely gratify and increase his dependants. This is evident from the
conduct of our adversary before and after the death of the duke of
Orleans.
‘It is a truth, that shortly after the death of his father the duke of
Burgundy, he exerted himself to the utmost to obtain similar power in
this realm, and with the same pensions and authority as his late father
had enjoyed. But this was not granted to him, because his father had
been uncle to the king, and was a man of great prudence and
understanding, qualities not possessed by our adversary.
‘Having been disappointed, he instantly began to practise how he could
better obtain his object; and for this end, prior to the death of the
duke of Orleans, he caused reports to be circulated throughout the
kingdom of his affection to the public weal, and that he alone was the
fittest person to govern it. When he perceived, that in spite of his
fictions, the duke of Orleans still possessed the authority he was
panting for, because he was the son of a king, and the only brother to
the king, and more fit for the government than the duke of
Burgundy,—seeing, therefore, all his plans frustrated, he conspired to
take away the life of the duke of Orleans, expecting that when he should
be made away with, no other person would dare to dispute his having the
sole government of the kingdom.
‘This is the principal cause of so barbarous a murder, notwithstanding
the arguments that have been urged in his excuse, as is well known to
all. His conduct, likewise, after the death of my late lord of Orleans,
confirms it; for instantly, on his return to Paris, he began to push
forward those that were his dependants and supporters, by depriving many
valiant and deserving men of places which they held under the king,
without any other cause but that they had been appointed to them by my
lord of Orleans, as others had been, and giving their offices to such as
he pleased, in order to gain more authority and power. He also
endeavoured to make all placemen, particularly those who had the
management of the royal treasury, subservient to him, that they might
not refuse him any thing.
‘Our adversary was most anxious to have the government of the treasury,
and obtained from it the sum of two hundred thousand livres, by warrants
thereon, or otherwise, great part of which he distributed among his
people, as is well known to the clerks of the treasury; and this was his
principal object in putting to death his rival in power, my late lord of
Orleans, namely, covetousness of the king’s money, and to give it away
and enrich his followers. It appears, therefore, that covetousness and
pride have been the springs of his actions; but, please God, he shall
not in this instance profit from them,—and the words of Job, in his
seventh chapter, shall be verified, ‘Cum habuerit quod cupierit,
possidere non poterit.’
‘My sixth and last argument is founded on the conduct of our adversary,
who, not satisfied with having murdered the late duke of Orleans,
attempts, in conjunction with his followers, to deprive him of his good
fame and renown, by defamatory libels, wherein he groundlessly and
falsely charges him with the crimes of divine and human high treason, of
which he was perfectly innocent, as has been, and shall be again
demonstrated.
‘It may be said, that this justification is even more scandalous than
the fact itself; for to fall into sin is the lot of humanity, but
obstinately to persevere in it is diabolical. And this manner of
justifying murder is the defence of his own sin, and daring to do what
God hates: he follows not the example of David when he said, ‘Non
declines cor meum in verba maliciæ ad excusandas excusationes in
peccatis.’
‘I come now to my third division, in which I shall reply to the
defamatory libel, and to the accusations therein, that were made by our
adversary against the character of my late lord of Orleans. I may fairly
quote the words of the Psalmist, on the part of my late lord, ‘Judica me
Domine secundum justitiam meam, et secundum innocentiam meam super me.’
This request the Psalmist makes to God, and such a request, O king! does
the duchess of Orleans now make to thee, as she requires nothing but
judgment and justice. May it please thee to listen to the answers of my
lady of Orleans to the six charges brought against her late lord, and
thou wilt then judge whether he has not been unjustly accused.
‘The first charge brought against the late duke of Orleans by the
advocate of the duke of Burgundy is, That during his lifetime he
committed the crime of high treason in the highest degree, by his
idolatrous conduct in witchcrafts and sorceries, contrary to the
Christian faith and the honour of God. It is true, that in regard to
this accusation, the advocate did not pursue it very far, saying, that
the judgment of such crimes belonged to God, the sovereign
Lord,—meaning, that no human judge was competent to it.
‘When making this charge, he spoke of an apostate monk and several
sorcerers, in whom my late lord of Orleans put confidence, according to
his allegations. I shall scarcely offer any reply to this accusation,
but, in like manner as he has done, refer the whole to the judgment of
God. It will be sufficient for me to show, in the first place, That my
late lord of Orleans was a good and true Christian; that he never
committed any sorceries or idolatries, nor ever departed from the faith
of JESUS CHRIST.
‘I may likewise add, That from his youth upward, he was of a religious
turn of mind,—for, notwithstanding his fondness for amusements, his
reliance was in God, to whom he very often confessed himself. Nay, the
very Saturday preceding his death, he had most devoutly confessed
himself, with many signs of contrition, declaring he would not longer
follow youthful pastimes, but solely devote himself to the service of
God, and to that of the public welfare. That I may not be suspected of
uttering falsehoods, many religious as well as others, are now alive, to
whom he had made such declarations; and, without saying more, let his
uncle the duke of Bourbon be heard, who knows what promises he made to
God,—for a little before his decease, he assured him, that henceforward
his conduct should be such as to merit the approbation of God and
mankind, and that all the inhabitants of this kingdom should be bound to
pray for him.
‘I know not if our adversary had heard of these wise declarations, or
whether he was afraid of their being effected, as they were quite in
opposition to his wish for the government; for he well knew that if my
lord of Orleans should act as he had said he would, his authority in the
kingdom would have been very small indeed. It may therefore be presumed,
it was for this that he was so eager to have my lord of Orleans put to
death.
‘O, Lord God! thou knowest how well he was inclined toward thee at the
time of his being murdered, which gives me confidence in his salvation;
for the holy Scripture says, ‘Justus si morte præoccupatus fuerit in
refrigerio erit.’ It is, however, evident, that our adversary did all he
could to destroy his soul, and afterward heard mass most devoutly in
appearance, putting what had passed out of his thoughts, and daily
saying his canonical prayers.
‘O, duke of Burgundy! why hast thou done all this through hypocrisy and
fiction? Who has revealed to thee the secrets of hearts? and who has
made thee the judge of men’s thoughts? Thou resemblest the Pharisees,
who called CHRIST a deceiver and possest of a devil! Thou knowest, that
even angels are ignorant of the secrets of our hearts, and yet thou
pretendest to judge them! O! how well does the Psalmist exclaim, ‘Tu
solus es scrutans renes et corda!’
‘It is notorious, that my late lord founded many masses and private
chapels, doing much service to the church: let then his last will, so
devoutly written, be considered with what I have before said, and any
one may decide whether he was an idolater or sorcerer. It is true,
indeed, that the advocate for our adversary refers to the judgment of
God all that respects divine high treason, saying that he will not make
this an especial charge against the late duke of Orleans.
‘But I now ask why he thus acts? Because he knows the charge is
groundless, and that in many places human judges may and do punish
sorcerers and idolaters according to their power; and that numbers have
for these crimes been condemned to death, because they were bad
Christians, and that from such errors of the faith proceed heresies. It
is written in the second book of Kings, that Josias killed and
extirpated diviners and sorcerers; and in the tenth chapter of
Zacharias, ‘Divini viderunt mendacium et somniatores locuti sunt
frustra.’ It is also written in the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, ‘Ne
declinetis ad magos, nec ab ariolis aliquid sciscitemini.’
‘The reason why the advocate passed so rapidly over this charge was,
that he knew nothing against my lord of Orleans that could prove him a
bad Christian, or that he was not firm in his belief of religion. O,
lord king! my lady of Orleans supplicates thee, that the words of Job,
in the twenty-second chapter, may be verified,—‘Salvabitur innocens in
munditia manuum suarum.’
‘The second accusation was, That my lord of Orleans favoured the schism
in the church, by affording aid to Pietro della Luna, formerly called
Pope Benedict, and was consequently guilty of high treason in the second
degree. In reply, I say, that my lord of Orleans gave no aid nor showed
any favour, but with the laudable end of making an honourable peace in
the church, and particularly when he considered Benedict as the true
pope. It is well known, that our obedience to the church would have been
brought about more to our honour if Pietro della Luna had done his duty,
by yielding up his claims, for the union of the church, than by
violently supporting them. My lord of Orleans may have said, it will be
better to wait a little, for the above Pietro to send in his cession,
than by hurrying make affairs worse. In this there could not be any evil
intentions; for it is a fact, that he was anxious for the union of the
church, and believed firmly that Pietro della Luna was willing to
abdicate his claims, whenever the roman pontiff should be ready to do
the same.
‘Many are now living who have heard the duke swear, that if he knew
Pietro della Luna was unwilling to yield up his pretensions, when the
other pope should resign his, he would be the bitterest enemy he had in
the world; and should it be thought necessary, they are ready to prove
it. Now let us consider what advantage the division of the church could
be of to him. He was wise enough to see all the evils that flowed from
it, and not so weak as to found confidence on a man so old as Pietro
della Luna. He knew, besides, that by the union of the church more
spiritual and temporal advantages would fall to the share of himself and
friends, without comparison, than if the schism were continued.
‘To show more evidently the earnest desire my lord of Orleans had for an
union of the church, I will mention a proposal which he made to the
university of Paris three weeks before his death. When he perceived that
the roman pontiff would neither come to Genoa nor Savoy, nor accept as
hostages those who had been presented to him by the mareschal de
Boucicaut, and that nothing else prevented the union of the church, for
Pietro della Luna was ready to go to either of these places, he
addressed the following speech to the members of the university: ‘O
rector, and you all my good friends! see I pray ye that we may shortly,
through the grace of God, restore peace to the church, and may give
satisfactory security, that the roman pope may come to Genoa. I have
offered him the choice of one of my sons, as his hostage, and am ready
to send him, at my own expense, to Venice, or elsewhere. Write,
therefore, such letters as you shall think proper to him, and I will
sign them. Tell what I have said to the whole university, and bring me
their opinions on it.’
‘The heads of the university thanked him very warmly for his
offer,—adding, that he could not make a more generous proposal, and that
he had demonstrated by it the affection he bore to the church. There are
persons still living whom he had ordered to go to Rome and Venice to
give notice of the offer he had made. Now, my lords, could he have done
more than to give his own flesh and blood for an hostage? And our
witnesses of this act are neither weak nor ignorant persons, but doctors
and professors of theology.
‘O, duke of Burgundy! this will show to thee how false has been thy
accusation; and on this charge thou oughtest to have been silent,
knowing as thou must how anxious thou wert to acquire the friendship of
Pietro della Luna. At the time when Pietro was in the greatest disgrace,
thou didst write and send to him to obtain bishopricks and other
preferments for thy dependants; and thy messengers were not pages nor
common persons, but the guardian of thy soul, namely, thy confessor,
that he might the more clearly and securely explain thy meaning.
‘It was also said, that my lord of Orleans consented to the malicious
excommunication sent by Pietro della Luna to induce the king to continue
his obedience to him. Now it is quite clear that this wicked
excommunication carries no effect against Pietro della Luna, except in
case the king should become disobedient, and that he had given his
consent to the said excommunication, which, as has been said, was to
have no effect, except in case of renunciation of allegiance or
disobedience. It is certain that Pietro della Luna was of a temper
obstinate enough to do such things, and that he acted thus without
consulting any one, and as certain that my lord of Orleans was
unfavourable to this act,—for it was not put in force until after his
death.
‘Weigh, at the same time, my lords, the misconduct of our adversary, and
the innocence of the duke of Orleans, who may say with the Psalmist, ‘Os
peccatoris et os dolosi super me apertum est, locuti sunt adversum me
lingua dolosa, et sermonibus odii circumdederunt me.’
‘The third charge of our adversary is, that my late lord of Orleans
practised different means to cause the death of his prince and lord, the
king of France: first, as it is said, by sorceries, witchcrafts and
superstitions;—secondly, by poisons;—thirdly, by fire, water, or other
violent injections, which consequently inculpates my lord of Orleans in
the crime of human high treason, in the person of the king our lord.
‘In regard to the first part of the charge relative to poison, supposed
to be administered by a monk under the forms of a sword, a buckler, a
ring, or a wand,—and that, to accomplish this, my lord of Orleans had
sent for this monk, a knight, an esquire and a varlet, to whom, our
adversary says, he gave large sums of money,—all this I deny as absolute
falsehoods, for my said lord of Orleans never consented to sorceries or
such forbidden deeds.
‘Should this monk have done such sorceries, it was no way through the
exhortation of my lord of Orleans, nor ought this to have been so
lightly alledged against him,—for there was a long trial held of this
monk before the ministers of the king, from whom the truth may be known.
It was then discovered by the confession of the monk, that my lord had
forbidden him to use any magic arts that would any way prove to the
prejudice of the king’s person; and God knows, if there had been any
truth in the charge, it would not have been concealed until after my
lord’s death.
‘By this, the falsehood of the accusation is evident; and although my
foresaid lord may have at times held some conversation with this monk,
let it be remembered that he was then young, not more than eighteen
years old, and that princes of that age are frequently deceived by
artful talkers, to gain money from them.
‘With respect to the bone wrapped up in a small linen bag which he wore
between his shirt and skin, as our adversary says, until it was torn
from him by a knight, whom he hated ever after, and continued to
persecute until he had ruined him in his fortune, and procured his
banishment out of the realm,—this is most assuredly false; for the
knight was banished the kingdom by sentence of the courts of justice for
a very notorious cause, and this odious circumstance was never mentioned
but by this knight who published it, and who, according to our
adversary, was suspected of hatred to the duke of Orleans, and
consequently not a competent witness to be admitted against the defunct.
‘Consider, my lords, what falsehoods are contained in the accusations of
our adversary, and that such as read his libel must be deceived. It
behoves, therefore, the reverend professors of theology to correct it as
soon as possible, for they know that such libels ought not to be written
nor published; but the most marvellous circumstance of all is, that this
libel and these falsehoods have been suffered and made public by a
theologian in the presence of the king’s majesty.
‘We are at present in a similar situation to that in which Saint Austin
represents the companion of the physician and astrologer disputing on
twin children, the one fat and the other lean. The astrologer
attributing the difference to the ascendancy of the stars,—the physician
declaring, that the fat one received the soul first, and, being the
strongest, sucked nearly the whole of the food,—which ought to be
believed? The physician, certainly, as St Austin says. We, in like
manner, may give greater credit to the faculty of medicine in this
manner than to the faculty of theology: the professor has very foolishly
argued his case.
‘O, most merciful God! apply a remedy to this, for thou seest
theologians affirm that sorcerers may succeed in their incantations; and
it is erring against the holy Scriptures to say, that sorcerers are
others than liars. And the wise Solomon makes this answer to those who
asserted similar errors, in the 33d chapter of Ecclesiasticus,—‘Quod
divinatio erroris, et arguta mendacia et somnia maleficiorum vanitas
est.’ Thomas Aquinas quotes this authority to prove that sorcerers
cannot succeed.
‘O, thou university of Paris! please to correct thyself; for such absurd
sciences are not only forbidden, as being contrary to the honour of God,
but as containing nothing true, which is confirmed by the workers of
magic.
‘Ovid says, in his book, ‘De Remedia Amoris,’
‘Fallitur Hermionæ si quis mala pabula terræ:
Et magicas artes posse juvare putat.’
‘Master John de Bar, who was very expert in this accursed art, and who
was burnt, with all his books, declared, at his last confession, that
the devil never appeared to him, and that his invocations and sorceries
never succeeded, although many said the contrary. He added, that he had
practised this art to obtain money from persons of high rank. It is
therefore most strange to charge the duke of Orleans with such vain and
foolish sorceries, as there never was a man who hated them more, or who
persecuted such as practised them with greater rigour.
‘Every one knows that my late lord was the principal cause of the trial
of John de Bar and of two augustan friars, before the king’s council and
clergy summoned for this purpose, and were in consequence executed for
their evil deeds.
‘With regard to what the advocate for our opponent says, that the late
lord of Milan only gave his daughter to the duke of Orleans in the hope
of her being queen of France; and that, on her taking leave of him, he
should say, ‘Adieu! my child: I never wish to see thee again but as
queen of France.’ This is absolutely false; for my lord of Milan was in
treaty with the duke of Gueldres, brother to the king of the Romans, to
marry his daughter: ambassadors were even on their road to Milan to
conclude the match, when Bertrand Gaad, at that time tutor to the count
de Vertus, was sent by the king and the dukes of Berry and Burgundy,
(whose soul may God receive!) to propose the alliance of the duke of
Orleans.