7 – Joan of Arc Trial – Subsequent Documents

The Trial of Jeanne D’Arc

Jeanne d'Arc martyrdom spot today

Rouen France. The cross is on the spot where Jeanne was burned alive on May 30, 1431.

June 7, 1431

SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS I Information given after the execution on many things said by her at her end and in articulo mortis. (1)

On Thursday, June 7th, 1431, we the said judges received ex officio information upon certain words spoken by the late Jeanne before many trustworthy persons, whilst she was still in prison and before she was brought to judgment.

And first the venerable and circumspect master Nicolas de Venderès, licentiate in canon law, archdeacon of Eu and canon of the church of Rouen, aged 52 or thereabouts, a witness produced, sworn, received and examined this day, declared upon oath that on Wednesday the last day of May, on the Eve of Corpus Christi last, the said Jeanne, being still in the prison where she was detained in the castle of Rouen, said that considering that the voices which came to her had promised her she should be delivered from prison, and she saw the contrary, she realized and knew that she had been and was deceived by them.

This Jeanne said and confessed that she had seen with her

———————————– (1) It is difficult to find anything more logically introduced than this conclusion to the Trial Record. Is it necessary to say that all this is as far as possible from the truth? That it is propaganda after execution? Here, more than in the Trial Record, the judges present their apologia. It is not signed by the notaries.

own eyes and heard with her own cars the voices and apparitions mentioned in this case: at this there were present we, the said judges, master Pierre Maurice, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Loiseleur, brother Martin Ladvenu, master Jacques Le Camus, and several others.

Brother Martin Ladvenu, priest of the order of Preaching brothers, aged about 33, witness produced, received, sworn and examined, said and declared on oath that this Jeanne on the morning of the day an which sentence was delivered against her, said and confessed before she was brought to judgment, in the presence of masters Pierre Maurice, Nicolas Loiseleur, and the said Dominican brother Toutmouillé, that she knew and recognized that she had been deceived by the voices and apparitions which came to her; for these voices promised her, Jeanne, that she should be delivered and set free from prison, and she clearly perceived the contrary.

Asked who induced her to say this, he said that he himself, master Pierre Maurice and master Nicolas Loiseleur exhorted her for the salvation of her soul, and they asked her if it were true that she had received these voices and apparitions. She answered that it was, and continued to say so up to the end: yet she did not precisely describe, at least as far as he understood, in what form they came to her, except as far as he could remember, that they came in great multitude and in the least dimension. Moreover, he then heard Jeanne say and confess that because the clergy held and believed that any spirits which might come to her came and proceeded from evil spirits, she also held and believed in this matter as the clergy did, and would no longer put faith in these spirits. And in his opinion Jeanne was then of sound mind.

He said that on the same day he heard Jeanne say and confess that although in her confessions and answers she had boasted that an angel from God had brought the crown to him she called her king, that she had accompanied the angel when he brought the crown, and many other things reported at greater length in the trial, nevertheless uncoerced and of her own free will she saw and confessed that in spite of all she had said and boasted on this subject, there was no angel who brought the crown; that she, Jeanne, was the angel who had told and promised her king that she would have him crowned at Reims if she were set to work; that there has been no other crown sent from God, whatever she had said and affirmed in the course of her trial on the subject of the crown and sign given to him she called her king.

The venerable and discreet master Pierre Maurice, professor of sacred theology, canon of Rouen, aged about 38 years, witness produced, received, sworn and examined on this day, said and deposed that he visited her in the morning of the day when the sentence was delivered against this Jeanne, whilst she was still in prison, to exhort her to save her soul: and whilst he was exhorting her and asking her about the angel who, according to her had brought the crown to him she called her king, he heard her answer that she herself was this angel.

Asked about the crown she promised him, and the host of angels who accompanied her, She answered that it was true that they appeared to her in the likeness of certain very minute things.

And finally when he had asked her if this apparition were real, She answered that it was, and whether good or evil spirits, they really had appeared to her, saying in French, “Soint bons, soint mauvais esperits, ilz me sont apparus.” She said also that she had heard her voices mostly at the hour of Compline, when the bells were rung; and also in the morning when the bells were rung. He told her it appeared that they were evil spirits who had promised her deliverance and that she had been deceived, whereupon the said Jeanne answered that this was true, she had been deceived. He heard her say that she referred to the Church to decide whether they were good or evil spirits, and in his opinion she was, when she said that, sound of mind and understanding.

Brother Jean Toutmouillé, priest of the order of Preaching brothers, about 34 years of age, witness produced, received, sworn, and examined on Thursday, said and deposed that on the morning of the day when the sentence was delivered against this Jeanne, to wit Wednesday, the Eve of the Feast of Corpus Christi, he, in the company of brother Martin Ladvenu of the same order, visited this Jeanne to exhort her to save her soul, and heard her say to Pierre Maurice who had preceded him there, that what she had said and confessed touching the crown was pure fiction, and she herself was the angel: this the said master Pierre took down in Latin. Then she was questioned about the voices which came to her, and the apparitions. She answered that she really had heard voices, chiefly when the bells were being rung at Compline or Matins; although master Pierre told her that sometimes when men hear bells they imagine they hear and catch certain words.

The said Jeanne said and confessed that she had had apparitions come to her, sometimes in a great multitude, sometimes in a small number, or in minute things: she did not otherwise describe their form and figure.

He said that on the same day, after our arrival in the room where she was detained, we the said bishop said to Jeanne in French, before the vicar of the lord Inquisitor, “Now, Jeanne, you have always told us that your voices promised you you would be delivered; you now see how they have deceived you. Tell us the truth now.” Then Jeanne answered us, “Truly I see they have indeed deceived me.” He did not hear her say anything more, except that at first, before we the judges had arrived in her prison, Jeanne was asked whether she believed that the said voices and apparitions proceeded from good or evil spirits: and she replied, “I do not know. I refer me to my Mother the Church,” or “to you who are of the Church.” In his opinion Jeanne was then of sound mind, and he heard Jeanne herself confess that she was of sound mind.

Jacques Le Camus, priest, canon of Reims, aged about 53 years, witness produced, sworn and examined on this day, said and deposed under oath that in the morning of Wednesday, the Eve of Corpus Christi last, he accompanied us the said bishop to the room where Jeanne was detained in the castle of Rouen, and heard this Jeanne publicly confess in a voice audible to all those present that she Jeanne had seen the apparitions come to her and had heard their voices, promising that she should be delivered; and since she recognized that they had deceived her she believed they were -not good voices or good things. A little while later she confessed her sins to brother Martin of the order of Preaching brothers, and after receiving the sacrament of confession and penance, when the said brother was about to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist to her, and held the consecrated host in his hands, he asked her, “Do you believe this is the body of Christ?” And the said Jeanne answered, “Yes, and He alone can deliver me. I ask for it to be administered to me.” Then the same brother said to her, “Do you still believe in these voices?” She answered, “I believe in God alone, and will no longer put faith in these voices, because they have deceived me.”

Master Thomas de Courcelles, master of arts and bachelor of theology, aged about 30 years, witness produced, received, sworn and examined on this day, said and deposed under oath that on Wednesday, the Eve of Corpus Christi, he, being in our presence in the room where the said Jeanne was detained in the castle of Rouen, heard and understood us the said bishop to ask Jeanne if her voices had told her she would be delivered. And She answered that her voices had told her she would be delivered, and she should keep a good countenance. She added, he thought, sententiously, “I see indeed that I have been deceived.” And then we the said bishop told Jeanne she could then see that these voices were not good spirits, and did not come from God, for if they did, they would never have uttered false or lying things.

Master Nicolas Loiseleur, master of arts, canon of the churches of Rouen and Chartres, aged about 40 years, witness produced, received, sworn, and examined on this day, said and deposed under oath that on the morning of Wednesday, the Eve of Corpus Christi last, he went with the venerable master Pierre Maurice, professor of sacred theology, to the prison where Jeanne, commonly known as The Maid, was confined, to exhort and admonish her for her salvation. Required to speak the truth concerning the angel who, according to her statements in the trial, had brought to him she called her king a most precious crown of very fine gold, and urged not to hide the truth inasmuch as she had nothing more to do but consider the salvation of her soul, the witness heard her say that it was she, Jeanne, who had announced to her king the crown mentioned in the trial, that she was the angel, and there had been no other angel but herself.

And then she was asked if she had really sent a crown to him she called her king. She replied that there was nothing beyond the promise of coronation which she herself made to him, assuring him he would be crowned.

Master Nicolas Loiseleur said also that often, before master Pierre, the two Preaching brothers, ourselves, and many others, he heard Jeanne say that she really had received revelations and apparitions of spirits; that she had been deceived in these revelations, which she well recognized and perceived because although they had promised her deliverance from prison, she saw only the contrary; upon whether these spirits were good or evil she referred to the clergy, but she put and would put no more faith in them.

He said that he exhorted her to destroy the error she had sown among the people, to confess publicly that she had deceived herself and the people by putting faith in such revelations and exhorting the people to believe in them; he exhorted her humbly to ask pardon for this. Jeanne answered that she would willingly do so, but she did not imagine that she would remember when the proper time came, that is when she was in judgment before the people; and she asked her confessor to remind her of it and of other things tending to her salvation. From this and from many other signs he thought that Jeanne was of sound mind, for she showed great signs of contrition and penitence for the crimes she had committed. He heard her, in prison before many witnesses and in public afterwards, ask with great contrition of heart pardon of the English and Burgundians for having caused them to be slain, put to flight and, as she confessed, sorely afflicted.


Here follows the tenor of the letters which our lord the King addressed to the emperor, to the kings, dukes and other princes of all Christendom

“Your imperial highness, most serene king and our very dear brother, is famous for the devout affection and zeal which he exercises to the honor of the Catholic faith and the glory of Christ’s name: your mighty efforts and strenuous labors are assiduously directed towards the protection of the faithful people and the overthrow of the malice of heretics, and your spirits exult with great joy whenever you learn that the holy faith has been exalted in your lands and the pestilence of error oppressed. Wherefore we are moved to write to your serene highness upon the just punishment which for her faults a certain lying prophetess who not long ago appeared in our kingdom of France recently suffered.

“A certain woman whom the vulgar called The Maid had in fact arisen, who with an astonishing presumption, and contrary to natural decency, had adopted man’s dress, assumed military arms, dared to take part in the massacre of men in bloody encounters and appeared in divers battles. Her presumption grew until she boasted that she was sent from God to lead their martial struggles, and that St. Michael, St. Gabriel, a host of other angels, with St. Catherine and St. Margaret, appeared visibly to her. So for almost a whole year she gradually seduced the people until the greater part turned away from the truth, put their trust in fables about the accomplishments of this superstitious woman which common report spread through almost the whole world. At last, taking compassion on His people whom He perceived to be stirred too easily by these dangerous and novel credulities, before receiving any proof that she was inspired by God, the divine mercy delivered this woman into our hands and power. Although she had inflicted many defeats upon our men and had brought great harm to our kingdoms, and it would therefore have been permissible for us to submit her forthwith to grave punishments, nevertheless not for one moment did we design to avenge our injury in that way or commit her to the secular authority for punishment. We were summoned by the bishop of the diocese in which she was captured to surrender her for judgment to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for she was commonly accused of grave and scandalous crimes hostile to the orthodox faith and the Christian religion. We therefore, as befits a Christian king reverencing the ecclesiastical authority with filial affection, immediately delivered the said woman to the judgment of Our Holy Mother Church and the jurisdiction of the said bishop.

“And certainly he, with all solemnity and most honorable gravity, after securing the collaboration of the vicar of the Inquisitor of Heretical Error, conducted this famous trial for the honor of God and the salutary edification of the people. After this woman had been for many days examined by the said judges, they submitted her confessions and statements to the decision of the doctors and masters of the University of Paris and many other learned authorities, and according to their advice they declared this woman to be manifestly superstitious, idolatrous, a prophetess, a caller up of demons, blasphemous towards God and His saints, schismatic and greatly erring from the faith of Jesus Christ. Indeed, to purge this miserable sinner of her pernicious crimes and to medicine her soul in the extremity of its frailty, she was for many days repeatedly admonished by charitable exhortations to reject all her errors, to walk in the straight path of truth and to keep herself from the grave dangers which threatened her body and soul.

“But the spirit of pride took hold of her mind so that her iron heart could by no means be softened by healthful teaching and salutary counsel. On the contrary, she obstinately boasted that she had done it all at the command of God and of the saints who visibly appeared to her; and, which was still worse, that she recognized no earthly judge, would submit to none except God Himself and the blessed ones of the triumphant land, and spurned the judgment of our Holy Father the Pope, of the Council General and of , all the Church Militant. From which the said judges, seeing the hardness of her heart, summoned this woman before the people, and declared her errors to her in a public sermon, addressing final warnings to her. At last the judges’ sentence of condemnation was begun; but before the reading of it was finished this woman altered her former way of speech and announced that she would utter better things. This her judges welcomed with joy, hoping to have redeemed her body and soul from perdition, and they lent willing ears to her speech: then she submitted herself to the authority of the Church, loudly denied and abjured her errors and pernicious crimes, and signed with her own hand the formula of this recantation and abjuration.

“As our pious Mother Church rejoices when a sinner repents, and to the fold brings back the lamb wandering in the wilderness, so she confined her in prison for her salutary penance. But the fire of her pride which then seemed stifled, renewed by the breath of devils, suddenly burst out in poisonous flames; this wretched woman returned to her errors, to her false infamies which she lately had vomited away. Finally, as the ecclesiastical sanctions decree, to avoid the infection of the other members of Christ, she was given up to the judgment of the secular power which decided that her body was to be burned. Seeing then the nearness of her latter end, this wretched woman openly acknowledged and fully confessed that the spirits which she claimed had visibly appeared to her were only evil and lying spirits, that her deliverance from prison had been falsely promised by the spirits, who she confessed had mocked and deceived her.

“Such was the issue, such her end, most serene king, which we have thought it wise to make known to you so that your royal highness may perfectly understand the thing itself, and inform others of this woman’s death. For there is one thing which we esteem altogether necessary for the faithful people, that by your serene highness and other princes both ecclesiastical and secular the Catholic peoples may zealously be taught not to put their faith lightly in superstitions and erroneous frivolities, especially at a time such as we have just experienced, when we have in divers parts seen many false prophets and sowers of errors arise, who, armed with their impudent boldness against our Holy Mother Church, would doubtless infect the whole people of Christ if heavenly mercy and its faithful ministers did not endeavor with watchful care to repulse and punish the efforts of these evil men.

“May the Lord Jesus Christ keep your highness, most serene king, to protect his Church and the Christian religion, for many days in prosperity and the fulfillment of your desires.

“Given at Rouen, June 8th, 1431”

Here follows the tenor of the letters addressed by our lord the King to the prelates of the Church, to the dukes, counts and other nobles and to the cities of his kingdom of France

“Reverend father in God, it is fairly common report everywhere how more than two years ago the woman who called herself Jeanne the Maid, a false prophetess, did against divine law and the estate of her sex, dress in man’s clothes, a thing abominable to God, and in that condition journeyed to our chief enemy, whom, with others of his party, clergy, nobles and populace, she frequently gave to understand that she was sent from God, and presumptuously boasted that she often had personal and visible communication with St. Michael and a great host of angels and saints of Paradise, as well as with St. Catherine and St. Margaret. By these falsehoods and the hope she held out of future victories, she withdrew the hearts of many men and women from the way of truth, and converted them to fables and lies. She clad herself also in arms such as are worn by knights and squires, raised a standard, and, in excessive outrage, pride and presumption, asked to be given and allowed to bear the very noble and excellent arms of France, which she in fact obtained, and wore in many conflicts and assaults, as her brothers are said to have done: they were a shield azure with two fleurs-de-lis or, and a sword between supporting a crown. In such condition she went to the fields and led men of arms and passage in troops and great companies to commit and exercise inhuman cruelties by shedding human blood, causing popular seditions and tumults, inciting the people to perjury and pernicious rebellions, false and superstitious beliefs, by disturbing all true peace and renewing mortal Wars, permitting herself to be worshiped and revered by many as a holy woman, and working many damnable things too long to describe, which have nevertheless been well known in many places to the great scandal of almost all Christendom. But, taking compassion on His loyal people, the divine power did not leave them in danger or suffer them to dwell in the vain, perilous and novel credulities in which they so lightly believed, and in His great mercy and clemency permitted the said woman to be captured before Compiègne and delivered into our power and jurisdiction. We were forthwith summoned by the bishop of the diocese in which she had been taken to surrender her to him, her ecclesiastical judge, as accused and defamed of the crime of treason against God. As much out of reverence for Our Holy Mother Church to whose ordinances we prefer our own acts and desires, as we ought, as for the honor and exultation of our holy faith, we delivered the said Jeanne to him to be tried, for we did not wish the men and officers of our secular justice to avenge or punish her, as we might legally have done in view of the great harm, inconvenience, horrible murders, detestable cruelties and other unnumbered ills which she had wrought against our lordship and our loyal and obedient people. This bishop, in conjunction with the vicar of the Inquisitor of Errors and Heresies, having called together a great number of solemn masters and doctors of theology and canon law, with all solemnity and due gravity, opened the proceedings against this Jeanne. After she had been questioned for many days by him, and by the Inquisitor, her judges, they submitted her confessions and statements to the mature consideration of the said masters and doctors, and in a general manner to all the Faculties of our very dear and beloved daughter the University of Paris, to whom the confessions and statements were sent. Following these opinions and decisions the judges found this woman superstitious, a witch, idolatrous, a caller up of demons, blasphemous towards God and His saints, schismatic and greatly erring in the faith of Jesus Christ. And to reduce and restore her to the union and communion of our Holy Mother Church, to purge her of such horrible, detestable and pernicious crimes and sins, to cure and keep her soul from the eternal pain of damnation, she was often charitably and gently admonished at great length to put behind her and reject all her errors and humbly to return to the way and narrow path, or she put herself in great danger of body and soul. But the perilous spirit of pride and outrageous presumption which ever attempts to prevent and obstruct the union and safety of loyal Christians, so controlled and held this Jeanne in its chains that no healthful teaching or counsel, no administration of gentle exhortation, could humble or soften the hardness and stubbornness of her heart. Nay, she often boasted that everything she had done was well done, by the command of God and the virgin saints who had visibly appeared to her: and what is worse, she did and would recognize on earth God alone and the saints of Paradise, and refused and rejected the judgment of our Holy Father the Pope, of the Council General, and the Church Militant and Universal.

“Now the ecclesiastical judges, seeing the persistence of her hardness and obstinacy of spirit, had her brought before the clergy and the people assembled in great multitude, and in their presence her deeds, crimes and errors were solemnly and publicly preached, set forth and declared by a notable master of theology, to the exaltation of our said Christian faith, the extirpation of errors, the edification and correction of the Christian people. Once more she was charitably admonished to return to the union of Holy Church, and correct her faults and errors: but she remained headstrong and stubborn. Wherefore the judges proceeded to pronounce against her the sentence, lawfully ordained for such cases. But before the sentence was altogether read she began, it appeared, to regain her courage, saying that she would return to Holy Church, which the judges and clergy willingly and joyfully heard, and favorably received, hoping by such means to redeem her body and soul from perdition and torment. Then she submitted herself to the ordinance of the Holy Church, recanted with her own lips and publicly abjured her errors and detestable crimes, signing with her own hand the formula of recantation and abjuration.

“As our Mother Church rejoices when the sinner repents, wishing to restore to the others the lamb wandering in the desert, she condemned this Jeanne to prison for her salutary penance. But hardly had the fire of her pride seemed extinguished in her, when under the breath of the Enemy it burst out into poisonous flames, and soon the wretched woman fell back into the errors and false madness which she had formerly professed and since recanted and abjured. Therefore, as the judgments and institutions of the Church ordain, to prevent the contamination of the other members of Jesus Christ, she was again publicly admonished, and for her relapse into her wonted crimes and faults was abandoned to the secular justice which forthwith condemned her to be burned. When she saw her end approach she fully recognized and acknowledged that the spirits which she said had so often appeared to her were evil and false, that the promises they had made her were untrue, and so she confessed that she had been mocked and deceived by the spirits.

“Such was the issue of her works, such the end of this woman, with which we acquaint you by these presents, reverend father in God, so that you may be perfectly informed of this matter, and in such places of your diocese as you may think fit you may by public sermons or other means make these things known for the good and exultation of our holy faith and the edification of the Christian people who have so long been deceived and abused by this woman’s works. Thus you may, as befits your dignity, assure that none among the people entrusted to you shall dare to put faith lightly in such errors and dangerous superstitions, especially at the present time when we see many false prophets and sowers of damnable errors arising against our Holy Mother Church in mad audacity and outrageous presumption, who might perhaps infect the Christian people with the virus of false belief, if Jesus Christ in His mercy did not oppose them, and you and His ministers following your profession did not diligently endeavor to repulse and punish the wills and mad audacity of these evil men.

“Given in our town of Rouen, June 28th, 1431


Here follows the recantation of a certain friar who had spoken evil of the judges who tried this woman

“Reverend father in Christ and lord, and you, religious person and master, vicar of the religious person Jean Graverent renowned professor of sacred theology and Inquisitor of Heretical Error in the kingdom of France, especially appointed by the authority of the Holy See, I, Pierre Bosquier friar of the order of Preaching brothers, a miserable sinner and your subject, being desirous as a good and true Catholic to obey in all things my Holy Mother the Church and you the judges in this case, with all humility and devotion, as I confess I am bound to do; as from information made at your command you have found me guilty of the following: that I on the last day of May, on the eve of the Feast of Corpus Christi, I said that you and those who judged this woman Jeanne, commonly called The Maid, had done and did wrong; which words, seeing that this Jeanne had appeared before you in judgment and on trial of faith, are evil-sounding and appear to incline somewhat to heretical error; which words, so help me God, since it has been found that I uttered them, were said and uttered by me in thoughtlessness and inadvertence, and in drink. I confess that in this matter I have gravely sinned, and I ask pardon of our Holy Mother Church and of you, my judges and most feared lords, on handed knees and with clasped hands: I ask mercy of the Church, and most humbly submit to your correction, amendment and punishment, humbly praying that it may be without rigor.”

V Here follows the sentence of this friar

“In the name of the lord, amen. We, Pierre by divine mercy bishop of Beauvais and brother Jean Le Maistre, appointed in this city and diocese of Rouen by the renowned doctor Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of Heretical Error, himself appointed by apostolic authority to that office in the kingdom of France, to be his deputy and vicar in all that concerns the following case, having seen the facts of the process in matter of faith against the religious person brother Pierre Bosquier, and having considered the information collected at our command upon the charges of which he is accused; and seeing that it was and is perfectly manifest from the information that the accused said and uttered, in a certain place before few witnesses, not long after we had by our final sentence surrendered a certain woman, Jeanne, commonly called The Maid, to the secular justice as a heretic, that we did wrong, and that all who judged her also did wrong, by which he seemed to favor this Jeanne and grievously sinned and erred: seeing nevertheless that the said brother Pierre declared his desire, as a good and true Catholic, to obey in all things with humility and devotion our Holy Mother Church and Us, his judges, has willingly submitted to our orders and correction, and has declared himself ready to obey our commands, we, preferring merciful to rigorous justice, and remembering the quality of his person and that these words were spoken in drink, absolve him from the sentences he has incurred thereby, keep him in the fellowship of the Catholics, and restore him to good repute, if need be. Nevertheless we condemn him to imprisonment with bread and water until Easter next in the monastery of the Preaching brothers, in this final sentence pronounced by us in tribunal in these terms, subject to our mercy and moderation. Given at Rouen, August 8th, 1431.”


Copy of the letters addressed by the University of Paris to our Holy Father the Pope, to the Emperor, and the College of Cardinals

“We believe, most Holy Father, that vigilant endeavors to prevent the contamination of the Holy Church by the poison of the errors of false prophets and evil men, are the more necessary since the end of the world appears to be at hand. For the doctor of the nations latterly announced these dangerous times to come, when men will no longer hold to sound beliefs: for they will turn away from the truth, and be converted to fables. The gospel also said: ‘There will arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.’ So when we see new prophets arise who boast of receiving revelations from God and the blessed of the triumphant land, when we see them announce to men the future and things passing the keenness of human thoughts, daring to accomplish new and unwonted acts, then it is fitting to our pastoral solicitude to set all our energies to prevent them from overwhelming the people, too eager to believe new things, by these strange doctrines, before the spirits which they claim to come from God have been confirmed. It would indeed be easy for these crafty and dangerous sowers of deceitful inventions to infect the Catholic people, if every one, without the approbation and consent of our Holy Mother Church, were free to invent supernatural revelations at his own pleasure, and could usurp the authority of God, and His saints. Therefore, most Holy Father, the watchful diligence lately shown by the reverend father in Christ, the lord bishop of Beauvais and the vicar of the lord Inquisitor of Heretical Error, appointed by the apostolic Holy See to the kingdom of France, for the protection of the Christian religion, seems to us most commendable. For these have been at pains to examine carefully a certain woman, captured in the limits of the diocese of Beauvais, wearing the costume and armor of a man, accused judicially before them of falsely inventing divine revelations, of grave crimes against the orthodox faith: and they showed the whole truth of her actions.

“And after they had acquainted us with the course of the trial and asked us to give them our opinion on certain articles affirmed by her, so that it should not be said that silence has covered up that which was done for the exaltation of the orthodox faith, we resolved to inform your Highness of what we received. As we were instructed by the said lord judges, this woman, calling herself Jeanne the Maid, of her own accord, in her trial, confessed many points which, weighed by the diligent examination of many prelates, maturely considered by the doctors and other men learned in canon and civil law, submitted to the decision and judgment of our University, proved she should be held superstitious, a prophetess, a caller up of demons, idolatrous, blasphemous towards God and the Saints, schismatic and in every way erring in the faith of Jesus Christ. Full of affliction and sorrow for the soul of this miserable sinner caught in the pernicious snares of so many crimes, her judges, by frequent warnings and charitable exhortations, set all their efforts to draw her back from the path of her error and to effect her subjugation to the judgment of our Holy Mother Church. But the spirit of wickedness had so completely filled her heart that for a long time she rejected our salutary monitions with a hardened heart, refused to submit to any living man, of whatever dignity, or to the holy Council General, and recognized no other judge than God. At last it came to pass that the persevering labor of the said judges slightly diminished her great presumption: listening to their sound counsels, she denied and verbally abjured her errors, in the presence of a great multitude of people; she subscribed to and signed with her own hand a formula of abjuration and recantation. But hardly had a few days passed, when this wretched woman fell back into her former foolishness, and adhered once more to the errors which she had denied. Therefore the said judges condemned her, in their final decree, as a relapsed heretic, and gave her over to the judgment of the secular power. Now, when this woman learned that the destruction of her body was near, she confessed before all with many lamentations that she had been mocked and deceived by these spirits which she said had appeared visibly before her; and repenting in articulo mortis, she asked pardon of all: and so quitted this life. Wherefore it was clearly recognized by all how dangerous it was, how fearful, to give too light credence to the modern inventions which have for some time past been scattered in this most Christian kingdom, not by this woman only, but by many others also; and all the faithful of the Christian religion must be warned by such a sad example not to act so hastily after their own desires, but to listen to the teachings of the Church and the instruction of the prelates rather than the fables of superstitious women. For if we are at last through our own faults arrived at the point where witches falsely prophesying in God’s name but without His authority, are better received by the frivolous people than pastors and doctors of the Church to whom Christ formerly said, ‘Go ye and teach the nations,’ the end is come, religion will perish, faith is in decay, the Church is trampled underfoot and the iniquity of Satan dominates the whole world. Which may Jesus Christ prevent, and under the happy direction of your Beatitude, keep His flock from stain and contamination.”

For the College of Cardinals

“Most reverend fathers, we have esteemed it good for the welfare of the faith and the Christian religion to declare to the Holy Father and Sovereign Pontiff what we have heard and known upon the condemnation of the scandals committed in this kingdom by a certain woman; and we wrote to His Holiness in these terms, ‘We believe, most Holy Father, that vigilant endeavors, etc.’ Since, reverend fathers, Our Lord has placed you at this sublime vantage-point of the Holy See to discover what is happening in the whole world, especially that which concerns the integrity of the faith, we have considered that it was in no way proper for this matter to remain unknown to you, who are in fact the light of the world, from whom no semblance of truth must be hid, so that all loyal Christians may receive salutary instructions from you in matters of faith. May the Most High keep you in happiness to the salvation of His Holy Church!”


Dramatis Personae




CHARLES VII Charles VII was twenty-six years old at the time Jeanne came to see him. As far as we can learn he was then a prince of sad countenance, extremely pious, and had grown very timid because of the excesses of his partisans who had dishonored his cause by murdering Jean sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy] on the bridge of Montereau. Charles, who had left Paris after the revolution of 1418, lived in Berry and Touraine “immured and shut up in castles, foul places and manors with little rooms,” as Jouvenel des Ursins wrote, keeping himself “beyond the river Loire,” far from the seat of war and the frontier provinces. Very cautious, rather indolent and secretive, and greatly in need of money, the King was ruled by those who could procure resources for his treasury; he was a very temperate man, but lacking in will-power. It was only in his middle age that he gave himself to pleasure and to women.

In Jeanne d’Arc’s time, it is certain that the King was like a sleepwalker. The question “Quare obdormis, domine?” was the refrain of the strong and fine letter of Jouvenel, who had a very especial authority in that time, since he took part in the council of 1430, “where he was often summoned” (Bibl. Nat. ms. fr. 16259)

Charles VII has often been accused of ingratitude to Jeanne, who had him crowned at Reims. He was certainly mistaken in believing in the sincerity of the Burgundian truce, and in not attempting to take Paris in September, 1429. In brief, Charles VII did not see an immediate advantage in prosecuting energetically the conquest of his kingdom. He did not know how to profit by all the consequences of the national movement that was aroused by Jeanne’s advent. Abandoned in this fashion, the Maid could not but run the risks of every captain of the time, without the benefit of the power of being ransomed from implacable enemies.

But it is not just to pretend that Charles VII did nothing to get her out of the hands of her enemies. In the Morosini correspondence we find, under the date of December 15, 1430, that the news that the Maid had fallen into the hands of the Duke of Burgundy was so widespread that Charles, informed of it, had sent an embassy to Philippe te Bon to say to him that if there was nothing he could offer him to induce him to set her free, then he would exact vengeance for her upon his men that he had captive. Under the date of June 21 , 1431, correspondents of the same banker affirm that “The English wished to burn her (Jeanne) as a heretic, in spite of the Dauphin of France who tried to bring threatening forces against the English.” The King felt a “very bitter grief” upon the death of Jeanne, “promising to exact a terrible vengeance upon the English and women of England.”

These last words show sufficiently what was felt and said by the good people of France. We know, too, that during the winter of 14301431, La Hire, master of Louviers, made frequent expeditions into the neighborhood of Rouen, and that he worried the English government. In March, 1431, an expedition against Rouen by Dunois was paid for by the King. Another attempt was made against the Chateau d’Eu.

It does not appear that before Charles’s entrance into Rouen that anything could have been done towards Jeanne’s rehabilitation. This is not surprising if one remembers the unfortunate and decisive influence that Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims, had upon the King. The Archbishop had the temerity to disavow the Maid publicly. It is also welt to remember that in the address that Jean Jouffroy made before Pope Pius 11 in 1459, he declared that it was in order to manage Charles, Jeanne’s admirer, that he had not objected more than he had to his making use of her. Pius II, who had for informers the University men of Bâle and Jean Jouffroy, declared that he had found nothing reprehensible in her save her wearing men’s clothing. Charles, he knew, “bore very bitterly the death of the Maid.” It is true that Charles considered himself attainted in honor by Jeanne’s conviction, and that he ordered the first steps in the revision of her Trial.

Charles VII was represented kneeling, turned toward Jeanne d’Arc at the foot of the crucifix and the Virgin, in the first monument raised in Jeanne’s memory, on the bridge at Orléans at the end of the Fifteenth Century.


Jacques d’Arc, or Jacquot d’Arc, father of the Maid, was born about 1375 at Ceffonds, in the diocese of Troyes, according to the Traité sommaire of Charles du Lys. It was about the time of his marriage that he established himself at Domrémy, for Isabelle Romée was from Vouthon, a village seven kilometers distant. He seems to have enjoyed an honorable position in this countryside, whether he was rich, as some have implied, or not. In 1419 he was the purchaser of the Chateau de I’Ile, with its appurtenances, put up at auction that year. In a document of 1423 he is described as doyen or sergeant of the village; he therefore took rank between the mayor and the provost, and was in charge of collecting the taxes, and exercised functions analogous to those of the garde Champêtre. The same year finds him among the seven notables who responded for the village in the matter of tribute imposed by the damoiseau of Commercy. In 1427 in an important trial held before Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs, he was again acting as a delegate of his fellow-citizens. We know that he opposed with all his power the mission of his daughter, whom he wished to marry off, without a doubt. However, he went to Reims for the coronation of the King, and the King and the municipality defrayed his expenses and gave him a horse for his return to Domrémy. He was ennobled in December, 1429. Jacques d’Arc died, it is said, of sorrowing over his daughter’s end.


Isabelle or Isabeau. d’Arc, mother of the Maid, nee Romée, and called Zabilet in her patois, was born at Vouthon, near Domrémy. We learn from the testimony of Brother Pasquerel at the Rehabilitation proceedings that she returned from the great pilgrimage to Puy en Velay at the time when Jeanne was being conducted to the King, while the expedition to Orléans was being prepared. She was ennobled in the month of December, 1429. After the death of her husband Isabelle left Domrémy, and eventually settled at Orléans, where one finds her established in 1440. We may recall that Jeanne had desired to establish herself in Orléans, for before undertaking the expedition to Reims she had taken a long lese on a house in rue des Petits Souliers, in Saint Maclou parish, near the apse of Saint Catherine’s church.

“Very ill” upon her arrival, Isabelle, who was then about sixty years old, was cared for at the expense of the city of Orléans, and taken care of by the chambermaid of Messire Bertrand, physician. She lived in the house of Henrier Anquetil and the municipality granted her 48 sous parisis a month “to aid her in living and acquiring her necessities in the said city.”

She acted as plaintiff at the time of the Rehabilitation, and lived in the house which her son Pierre occupied in rue des Africains. She was then said to be “decrepit through age,” and she asked to be allowed not to attend all the hearings. She appeared before the Archbishop of Reims, not as witness, but always as plaintiff. She died on November 28, 1458, after having testified. In 1428 she founded at Domrémy an obit of two gros barrois for anniversary masses, as did Jacques d’Arc.


Robert de Baudricourt was the son of Liébaud, a man of Lorraine, chamberlain of the duc de Bar, and a lady of Champagne, Marguerite d’Aunoy. He was captain of Vaucouleurs at the time of Jeanne d’Arc and later Bailly of Chaumont for King Charles VII – after October 17, 1437.This personage, prudent and rich, was very strong in favor with René d’Anjou, who made him his councillor an chamberlain. He was still living in 1450. A squire, then made a knight, he was lord of the territory of Baudricourt in the Vosges, a fief o the duchy of Lorraine. This family had already served against the English. Jean, Robert’s son, was the first son of Lorraine to bear the bâton of marshal of France.


Charles II had Jeanne brought to Nancy. But he did not receive her with Baudricourt. This prince, who had checked the attempts of Louis d’Orléans to establish himself on the Rhine, as a feudal vassal of the Anglo-Burgundian power. He had married the very pious Margaret of Bavaria, who bore him only daughters. Jeanne’s remonstrance was aimed at his passion for Alison May, Of Nancy, his mistress, whose mother sold vegetables in a shop near the ducal palace, and whose father was precentor of the collegiate church of Saint Georges. On January 11, 1425, Charles II ceded her the hose she was living in with its furnishings and gold and silver plate. When he died Alison was taken to the square and put to death by the populace.

We know that Charles II listened to Jeanne with astonishment and that he gave her a sum of four francs to pay her for her trip (Durand Laxart’s deposition) and that he gave her a black horse (Jean Morel’s deposition) on which the Maid returned from Nancy to Vaucouleurs, at the end of February, 1429. The fabulous Chronique de Lorraine, which is entirely untrustworthy, states that Jeanne was armed by Charles II and that she engaged in a tourney in the castle grounds at Nancy.


René d’Anjou, at that time about twenty years old, was the son-in-law of Charles 11 of Lorraine. He was a son of Louis 11, King of Sicily, duc d’Anjou, Count of Provence, and Yolande of Aragon. He was brought up with the Dauphin Charles and married Isabelle, the heiress of Lorraine, in 1419. He was then a handsome and robust young man. After having seen his county of Anjou pass into the hands of Bedford, he had to endure, much against his will, the seizure of his county of Guise by Jean de Luxembourg (1424). He took part in the siege of Vaudemont and then in the expedition directed against Metz.

We may believe that he was in secret sympathy with Jeanne. But we find that on April 13, 1429, he was still paying homage to the lieutenant of the King of England, and on May 5, the Duke of Lorraine swore fidelity to Bedford in his name. In the same way he was named on a roll of those submissive to the English king, homage that he did not delay in disavowing (August 3). We may believe that he arrived at Reims too late for the coronation sacrament. René figures henceforth among the ranks of the royal army, demanding, after the Maid, to lead the van. Put in possession of the duchy of Bar, and then the duchy of Lorraine, René was taken prisoner at the battle of Bulgneville on June 30, 1431. He was imprisoned at Dijon and was not freed by Philippe le Bon until 1437, Unfortunate in his knightly efforts to keep his kingdom of Naples, King René lived henceforth in Anjou and Provence, an epicurean, a friend of books, poetry and women, composing pastorals and painting pictures in the manner of the Flemish artists.


Jean de Nouvilonpont, the present Nouillonpont, on the right bank of the Othain, of the arondissement of Montmédy — was also called Jean de Metz, squire. It was he who discovered Jeanne, when she was dressed in a poor red dress, and when she was lodged in the house of Henri le Royer. And he said to her: “My friend, what are you doing here? Is the King going to be chased out of his Kingdom and are we going to be English?” And the Maid replied: “I have come here to the King’s chamber to speak to Messire Robert de Baudricourt, so that he will take me to the King or have me taken to him. And he hasn’t troubled about me or my words. Nevertheless, before mid-Lent, I must go before the King even if I wear my feet off to the knees. For no kings or dukes or king of Scotland’s daughter or anybody else in the world can recover the Kingdom of France; there is no aid but myself although I should rather drown myself before the eyes of my poor mother, for it isn’t of my estate. But it is necessary that I come, and that I do this, for Our Lord wills that I do it.” Then the young squire believed in her, promised to take her to the Dauphin, and gave her his attendants’ clothes.

We learn that upon the arrival of the Maid in France, on April 21, Jean de Nouvilonpont received from Guillaume Charrier, receiver-general of the King, 100 livres for his expenses and those of the Maid’s company in the town of Chinon. That same month he received 200 livres more for “the Maid’s expenses” and 125 livres to procure armor for himself. He was lodged at the house of Jacques Boucher, the treasurer of Orléans, and was ennobled by the King in March, 1444, “in consideration of the laudable and very welcome services which he has rendered us in our wars and elsewhere.” Gobert Thibault, equerry of the King and judge of the city of Blois, who testified at the time of the Rehabilitation, numbered him among his friends. Jean de Nouvilonpont was questioned as a witness in the course of the Rehabilitation sessions. He was described as a nobleman living at Vaucouleurs, and about sixty-seven years old.


Bertrand de Poulengy was the squire who accompanied Jeanne to Chinon. He was armed at the expense of the King, and was lodged at Orléans at the home of Jacques Boucher, and he was a friend of Gobert Thibault, the King’s judge at Blois. He was questioned at Toul, at the time of the Rehabilitation, in 1455. He was described as a nobleman, an equerry of the King, and about sixty-eight years old.

As a young man he knew Jeanne’s parents, and had spent some time in the house of these “good workers.” He said she was a good young woman, “as good as a saint,” and very devout; that she tended her father’s animals and horses. Bertrand had met Jeanne again at Vaucouleurs and with Jean de Metz procured military equipment for her. Then they took the “road to France” with his servant, Julien, Jean de Honnecourt, servant of Jean de Metz, Colet de Vienne and Richard the archer.


Charles d’Orléans (1394-1465) was the son of Louis d’Orléans and Valentine Visconti. The murder of his father by Jean sans Peur made him the head of the faction for whom the Armagnacs and the national party were fighting (his enemies even said that he wanted to become king and that he had been anointed as such at Saint Denis). Charles spent all his fortune in prosecuting vengeance for his father’s murder, fell into the hands of the English-whom the Orleanist and Burgundian factions in turn had called into France-at the disaster of Agincourt in 1415. He was not freed until 1440, and then due to the efforts of the Duchess of Burgundy. From that time on he swore allegiance to Philippe le Bon, and was made a knight of the Toison d’Or. Peaceful by nature, and rather badly off financially, after a vain attempt in Italy to recover Astesan, he lived quietly at Blois for many years, devoting himself to meditation and the composition of melancholy verse.

He was, in short, an epicurean, this prince whom Jeanne saw as a lover of God, and whom she was charged to go to England and set free. But she always saw in him, as did all the good folk of France, the Unfortunate Prince, the head of the most active party up to 1414, the prisoner despoiled of his estates and who could not defend them.

Did Charles of Orléans know all that Jeanne had done for him, or about the delivery of Orléans? It is possible, for many messengers went to him in England to take him money. But it must not be forgotten, however, that Charles was a captive. All that we can learn is that after the Maid’s capture a scholar of Pavia, Antonio Astesano, addressed to the duke some Latin verses about Jeanne, developing the terms of a letter that Percival de Boulainvillier had sent to the Duke of Milan; but it remains very doubtful whether Charles ever received these verses.

We may imagine however that the duke awaited his deliverance through pacific means. Afterwards he did not speak of her, while the good city of Orléans never ceased honoring her memory in the annual celebration of May 8th (after 1435 the city paid the expense of the celebration). We must confess that the indifference of Charles d’Orléans, who was so careless but so good, is a shocking matter. But we must note however that his giving to Pierre d’Arc the enjoyment of the hereditary title to the Ile des Boeufs on July 29, 1443, was done “in favor and contemplation of his sister, Jeanne the Maid.”


Charles de Bourbon, comte de Clermont, and later duc de Bourbonnais, fought the Battle of the Herrings. He remained at Blois during the siege of Orléans, but he contributed to its defense, figured at the siege of Troyes, was present at the coronation of Reims, where he fulfilled the functions of a peer. He conferred with Jeanne at Senlis. Discontented with the return from Reims, he took part in the battle of Montepilloy, in the attack on Paris, and he was established as the lieutenant-general of Ile de France. But he renounced this and lost the château of Gournay sur Aronde.

As handsome as Absolom, much addicted to adventure and very talkative, he was very vigorously against Philippe le Bon who forced him to submit to his allegiance. We may consider him as suspect, for he took part in the misunderstanding between Charles VII and his son. He died in 1456, in his own territory, “dying sad and very helpless from gout.”


Jean d’Arc, who fled with his sister to Neufchâteau, accompanied her to France, and was lodged at the house of Jacques Boucher at Orléans. He was ennobled in December, 1429. He pretended to have recognized his sister at Metz in 1436, and claimed for himself gratuities from the city of Orléans. This conduct is very singular under the circumstances, even if he were admitting the common belief in the power Jeanne was said to have to escape the flames. When provost of Vaucouleurs he worked for the rehabilitation of his sister, appeared at Rouen and Paris, and formed a commission to get evidence from their native district and produce witnesses. He was Bailly of Vermandois and captain of Chartres and was discharged from the provostship of Vaucouleurs in 1468.

Pierre went to seek his sister “in France,” fought along with her at Orléans, lived in the same house with her in that city, accompanied her to Reims, and was ennobled with the rest of the family. He was captured with Jeanne at Compiègne. He declared, as did Jean, that he recognized his sister at Metz in 1436, received many gifts from the King, the city of Orléans, and Duke Charles, among them the Ile aux Boeufs in 1443.


Pierre de Bourlement, knight, was lord of the southern part of Domrémy. His wife “came from France” (Deposition of Zabillet, wife of Girardin d’Epinal). The Bourlemont family owned the serfs of the Barrois part of Domrémy, about thirty-five families at the end of the Fifteenth Century. They lived at times in a strong house situated facing the village on the island formed at the meeting of the two branches of the Meuse, and they were lords of parts of Greux, Maxey and Bourlemont. The château de Bourlemont dominates the Meuse on the right bank. above Domrémy. We know that Pierre de Bourlement and his wife and daughters never failed to attend the May Day fêtes.


Jeanne, Demoiselle de Luxembourg, was the sister of Count Waleran, and “very ancient” in 1430 according to Monstrelet. She was then at Beaurevoir “where governed Messire Jehan de Luxembourg, her nephew.” She had just inherited the seigneuries of her brother as the nearest heir of Philippe de Brabant, and took from that time the titles of Countess of Ligny and of St. Pol. “And because she loved her nephew so dearly” she left him most of her fiefs to the great discontentment of the lord of Enghien, his older brother. This old lady was the sister of the illustrious saint, Pierre de Luxembourg, and was the godmother of Charles VII. She died at Boulogne sur mer on October 13, 1430. Jeanne de Bethune, Viscountess of Meaux, was the wife of Jean de Luxembourg, and was French in sympathy as far as one can learn.


Brother Richard was a Friar Minor. He preached at Paris before large gathering of people that the Antichrist was born and that the Day of Judgment would fall in 1430. His last preaching was done or April 26, 1429. Shortly afterwards Brother Richard had to flee the city for he was threatened with prosecution by the Faculty of Theology on account of his errors.

We find him at Troyes in July, where he went to meet Jeanne. And Brother Richard preached there that Jeanne knew the secrets of God and those of any saint in Paradise as well, and that she had the power of introducing an army into any city whatever. According to Monstrelet, Brother Richard was again obliged to take to his heels as a follower of the party of Charles VII. He was in Poitiers in March, 1431, a prisoner in the monastery of the Friars Minor of that city. The vicars-general of the bishop and the inquisitor, whom the Court of Parlement joined in this action, forbade him to preach. Brother Richard was a person whose orthodoxy was very questionable, an illuminatus whose bad reputation in University and clerical circles certainly reacted against Jeanne.


Jacques Boucher, Jeanne’s host at Orléans, was treasurer and later receiver of the finances of Charles, duc d’Orléans, and was a very devoted servant of that prince. His house was situated at the Renard Gate. On February 10, 1416, Jacques Boucher is cited as clerk of the bailiffs of the Duke; he was given 14 livres to join the men at the council of Orléans at Calais, where the Duke was, in November, 1415. February and September, 1422, he replaced Pierre Renier as treasurer. On December 18, 1422, he obtained a safe-conduct in order to treat for the ransom of the Count of Angoulême. In June, 1439, at Calais Jacques Boucher delivered to Duke Charles 40 ecus d’or “for his pleasure.” On January 3, 1444, he was dead and was replaced by Jean Chardon, the Duke’s secretary. Jacques Boucher was able, without doubt, to see Charles d’Orléans during his captivity.


Regnault de Chartres was Archbishop of Reims, noted as prelate and diplomat. He was the son of Hector de Chartres, Lord of Onz-en-Bray, grand master of forests and waters in Normandy and Picardy, who was killed at Paris during the rising of 1418, when the Burgundians entered the city. Regnault was at that time thrown into prison. Three brothers of Regnault had already found their deaths at the disaster of Agincourt. An immense fortune recompensed these faithful servants in the person of the young prelate.

Regnault’s ecclesiastical career was in effect very rapid; he was dean of the cathedral of Beauvais before 1410, and was master of the great schools of the Cholets. He is cited, September 17, 1412, as camérier of the pope, référendaire, and his constant messmate; he intrigued to be elected Bishop of Beauvais. In 1414 Jean XXIII named him Archbishop of Reims in spite of the city and the Chapter. As the Pope’s friend he was entrusted at Constance with explaining the flight of the Pope; he went to see Emperor Sigismund in August, 1414, to have him determine the removal of the Council. Jean XXIII sent him as ambassador to Louis II of Anjou as well as to Charles VI. These missions continued to increase Regnault’s importance in France, and from ‘1414 he undertook futile reconciliations between the houses of Orléans and Burgundy. He was created councillor of the King in 1417, and in 1418 we see him at the conference at Montereau representing the King and the Count of Armagnac. In 1417 he went to England; in 1418 to Languedoc, where he raised troops, and in Savoy; in 1420 he went to Scotland to look for aid, and in 1422 to Spain. In 1425 we encounter him at Rome.

This young man had even then a reputation as an expert, a good diplomat, entrusted with the most difficult missions, as if he were an old ambassador. On May 8, 1424, he was created chancellor. The English confiscated his mansion in Paris, and Charles VII remitted to him 4,000 &us d’or so that he could marry one of his nieces to the Sire de Vauvert. The King sold for him the seigneurie of Vierzon.

A prudent man, reasonable to excess, having full confidence in his diplomatic ability, Regnault worked to end the English war by breaking the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. He was a witness of the decisive interview of the King and Jeanne, and was one of her examiners, was sent to Blois to direct the relief of Orléans. Regnault wrote from Troyes to the inhabitants of Reims to dispose them to receive the King with honor. He consecrated the King and recovered his capital city. It seemed at that instant that all would be accomplished for him as well as for Jeanne. The singular question that he asked Jeanne on the road to Crepy-en-Valois shows him already in defiance and from that moment we see Regnault return to his former and great idea of peace through an alliance with Burgundy. The extraordinary letter that he addressed to the people of Reims on the day after Jeanne was made prisoner is perhaps that of a politician; but it is also a testimonial to his hardness of heart. Jeanne had become at a day’s notice a hindrance, setting at naught the system of truces which stopped short the march of the victorious army and determined the check before Paris. But in any case we cannot see anything there but gloomy maneuvers. It would be more unwise still to regard Guillaume de Flavy, Regnault’s half-brother, as a traitor abandoning the Maid before his besieged city. Regnault, after Reims, always represented the cause of peace in the King’s council, against Jeanne and those who desired adventures, like the duc d’Alençon To this extent one can say that Regnault was responsible for her loss. It is unfortunate that he could not have read, as we can in the papers of Ghillebert de Lannoy, the Burgundian memoranda advocating the continuance of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. And we must not forget that Regnault’s idea was to be realized five years later in the happy peace of Arras, for which he had worked so hard, and which led to the end of the Hundred Years’ War. Regnault de Chartres died full of honors in 1445, after mid-Lent, at Tours, while as an obstinate peacemaker he was treating for peace between France and England.


Charles de Bourbon (1401-1456) in Jeanne’s time Count of Clermont, was the son of Jean I, fourth duke of Bourbon, who was made prisoner at Agincourt and died captive in England in 1433. After the murder of Jean sans Peur at Montereau, Charles fought for the Armagnac party and sent back to Philip of Burgundy his little fiancée Agnes. The Duke of Bourbon received charge of the government of Languedoc and Guyenne, and then of the Dauphiné. He was made lieutenant-general of the King in the Bourbonnais, Auvergne and Le Forez. He attacked La Trémouille strenuously and laid hands on the Chancellor, Gouge de Champaigne, then for a short time reconciled himself with the Duke of Burgundy and asked for his fiancée back again. Handsome, enterprising, very much the adventurer, but decidedly versatile, Charles de Bourbon led an army to Charles VII for the relief of Orléans. He was wounded and vanquished at the Battle of the Herrings. We meet him again at the siege of Troyes, at Reims where he fulfilled the functions of a peer of France and created knights. He was present at the battle of Montepilloy, communicated with Jeanne at Senlis, took part in the attack on Paris and witnessed with great dissatisfaction the rapid retreat of Charles VII. He was established as lieutenant-general of Ile de France, but he showed very little character in that office. We know that later, jealous of the influence his brother-in-law, Charles du Maine, had in the government, he took part in the Praguerie and was reconciled with the Burgundians. He died worn out by pleasure, war and gout.


Georges, Sire du Trémouille (1382-1446), was brought up at the court of Jean sans Peur of Burgundy whom he accompanied to Paris in 1413. He was named in that same year Grand Chamberlain of Charles VI. Taken prisoner at Agincourt, Georges did not recover his liberty until he paid a high ransom. He married, in 1416, the very rich and old Jeanne de Boulogne, widow of the duc de Berry, who died about 1423. From 1418 on Georges played the rôle of mediator between Charles VI and the princes. On January 21, 1420, Philip of Burgundy commanded the gens de Comples to grant him the Count of Boulogne to pay feudal homage. Sent on a mission close to the Duke of Burgundy in December, 1425, Georges was arrested at La Charité sur Loire by Perrinet Gressart, the captain who vainly fought against Jeanne d’Arc. In February, 1427, Georges took possession of Issodoun, where he captured Pierre de Giac, the favorite and minister of Charles VII. Giac was drowned, and his wife Catherine de l’Ile-Bouchard gave to the audacious Georges Giac’s jewels and money, and later herself. Thus in July, 1427, the former chamberlain of Jean sans Peur, Duke of Burgundy, this powerful baron whose family belonged to the Burgundian party, came into power as Charles VII’s first minister. Georges, moreover, held in his hand the great military lords of that time, and this fat man was able to advance money to King Charles VII who was always in need of it.

After the winning of Beaugency, Jargeau and Troyes, Georges de la Trémouille took part in the coronation at Reims. We know that after the defeat at Paris Jeanne stayed for some time at Trémouille’s castle at Sully sur Loire and that this sojourn was in the nature of a semicaptivity. We know also that in 1433 the Constable du Richemont, who was himself also accused of having forfeited Jeanne’s confidence, surprised Trémouille at Chinon. Georges, wounded by a dagger thrust, owed his life to nothing but his fat. He was confirmed in his pensions, but remained alienated from the court and later, at the time of the Dauphin Louis’s insurrection against his father Charles VII, Trémouille joined the revolutionists. He died at Sully on May 6, 1446.


Jean, duc d’Alençon, lost his father at Agincourt in 14T5, and as soon as he could do so, at the age of eighteen, he took up a career in arms, seeking to recover the lands held by the enemy. He married, in 1423, Jeanne, daughter of Charles d’Orléans and Isabelle of France. As lieutenant-general of the Dauphin in Normandy, Jean fought in 1424 the unfortunate battle of Verneuil, where so many lords of France and Scotland were lost. He was taken prisoner by the Duke of Bedford, and held for three years at Crotoy until he paid 200,000 saluts d’or for his ransom. He sold all he possessed to the English, and his fief of Fougères to the Duke of Brittany. When he left prison Jean d’ Alençon was “the poorest man in France.”

Faithful to France, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, the duc d’Alençon took command of a company of men-at-arms. We know how he led in the Maid’s enterprises everywhere, and the confident friendship that Jeanne had for her “beau duc.” Jean hoped to lead her sometime to conquer his duchy of Alençon in Normandy. About 1440 Jean d’Alençon who had until then the highest renown for prowess and fidelity, changed all at once. He took part in the revolt of the princes, received the Toison d’Or, had himself dismissed from his office as lieutenant-general, and believed that he was persecuted by the Count of Maine, and said that the King mocked him and did not treat him as he deserved. Jean talked indiscreetly, entered into relations with the English, promised them Granville, gave himself up to drinking, women and magic. On May 3, 1456, Jean testified at Paris at the Rehabilitation proceedings, but he was arrested on the thirty-first by Dunois. He was condemned to death by the peers of France in 1458 as guilty of lèse-majesté, but he was pardoned and freed upon the accession of Louis XI to the throne. d’Alençon was again condemned to death at a second trial in 1474, and this time, too, he was set at liberty. He died in 1476.


By the Lord of the Bear is meant the proprietor of the hostelry of that name at the Baudoyer gate in Paris. This Bear Inn is again mentioned in a document of 1465. Anatole France is the first to have identified in this “lord” Maître Jacquet Guillaume, a man of the Armagnac party about whom Parisian documents instruct us.


Jean de la Brosse, Marshal of France, is sometimes called Marshal de Boussac and Marshal de Saint Sévère, from the names of his fiefs. He commanded the guard of a hundred men who were the special bodyguard of the King. He distinguished himself at Orléans and at Patay, attended the coronation of Charles VII at Reims, and was appointed the King’s lieutenant beyond the Seine, Marne and Somme.

On June 5, 1430, Charles VII announced to the people of Reims that he was going to give prompt aid to the town of Compiègne. It was a question of Boussac’s coming: he was in command of a column of wagons following the army of Saintrailles an Vendôme which delivered Compiègne on October 25. We find de Boussac later in the army which offered combat to Burgundian troops at Montdidier in November. On February 3, 1432, a troop of six hundred French under his command approached Rouen secretly, planning to take the city by scaling the wall at night. Jean de la Brosse died in 1433.

deliverance of Jeanne d’Arc from Rouen. But he was captured by the Burgundians who held him for a ransom of 1,500 réaux d’or and kept him prisoner at Dourdan. In September, 1432, La Hire appeared at Lagny, which was besieged by Bedford, and he ravaged the lands of the Duke of Burgundy around Cambrai the following year. Captain general of the hither side of the Seine, in December, 1433, he took Ham and Breteuil from the Burgundians and defeated the Earl of Arundel at Gerberoy (1435). In spite of the peace of Arras he continued to wage guerrilla warfare in Artois, around Caux, but he was taken prisoner by the Lord of Offémont at Beauvais (1437). In the service of René d’Anjou, La Hire led the Écorcheurs in Lorraine (1438-1439). He took part in the sieges of Harfleur and Pontoise, and in the battle of Tartas. He died, poor and glorious, at Montauban on January 12, 1443.


Étienne de Vignolles, called La Hire, was a Gascon captain and Bailly of Vermandois. He was born about 1390 and entered the Dauphin’s service about 1418 and waged guerilla warfare in the country around Laon and in Vermandois. He was captain of Château Thierry in 1421 and then of Vitry in Champagne in 1422. He was seriously wounded at Saint Riquier and remained lame. He commanded the Lombard knights at Verneuil (August, 1424) and delivered Vendôme from Suffolk, succored Montargis in 1427, surprised Marchenoir but let the English retake Le Mans. He undertook the reprovisioning of Orléans which he entered on October 25, 1428. At the Battle of the Herrings La Hire protected the retreat of the French companies; he encountered the Maid at Blois and reëntered Orléans with her on April 29, 1429. He prosecuted the whole campaign of Beauce and commanded the forces that escorted Jeanne and the King on the March to Reims. Created Bailly of Vermandois, he installed himself at Laon. But we encounter him shortly afterwards in Normandy, of which he was captain-general after the taking of Louviers (1429). He conducted two mysterious enterprises which appear to have had as their object the deliverance of Jeanne d’Arc from Rouen. But he was captured by the Burgundians who held him for a ransom of 1,500 réaux d’or and kept him prisoner at Dourdan. In September, 1432, la Hire appeared at Lagny, which was besieged by Bedford, and he ravaged the lands of the Duke of Burgundy around Cambrai the following year. Captain-general of the hither side of the Seine, in December, 1433, he took Ham and Breteuil from the Burgundians and defeated the Earl of Arundel at Gerberoy (1435). In spite of the peace of Arras he continued to wage guerrilla warfare in Artois, around Caux, but he was taken prisoner by the Lord of Offémont at Beauvais (1437). In the service of René d’Anjou, La Hire led the Écorcheurs in Lorraine (1438-1439). He took part in the sieges of Harfleur and Pontoise, and in the battle of Tartas. He died, poor and glorious, at Montauban on January 12, 1443.


Jean IV, Count of Armagnac (1418-1450) was the son of Constable Bernard VII of Armagnac, a victim of the Paris rebellion. We know that this prince, who had married Isabelle of Navarre, and had sworn fidelity to the King of England in 1421, followed a fluctuating diplomacy of which he was later the victim. In the question of the Schism he supported Benedict XIII and then Clement VIII. Rebellious and submissive in turn, Jean IV was declared, on March 4, 1429, a schismatic, apostate, and placed under interdict. After the renunciation of Clement VIII, Jean asked forgiveness of Martin V. On March 4, 1430, he was relieved of the interdict and reëstablished in his dignities. What motive incited him to consult Jeanne on such a tangled question as that of the legitimacy of the pope? Did he wish to color his change of attitude with a pious pretext?


PIERRE CAUCHON Pierre Cauchon, born about 1371, in the environs of Reims, studied at the University of Paris. Licentiate in law in 1398, he was among the Parisian students who took part in the vote on withdrawing from obedience to Pope Benedict XIII; in 1403 he was a student in the sixth year in theology. When rector of the University, he sought to obtain a benefice near the Chapter of Reims, although he had already accumulated a canonicate and prebendary in the church of Chalons, and was curé of the parish church of Égriselles in the diocese of Sens. In 1406 he carried the matter of refusing obedience to Benedict XIII before the Parlement of Paris. The following year he was a member of the large embassy to Italy to summon Benedict XIII to renounce the Papacy. In 1408 as a recompense for his services in this matter he obtained the major chaplaincy of Saint Etienne of Toulouse. He was canon of Reims in 1409; bishop’s deputy at Reims in 1410, and canon of Beauvais, June 28, 1410 (Register of the cathedral chapter). In 1412 he was among the reformers charged with severity against the excesses of the Armagnacs; in 1413 at Paris he led the rising of the Cabochiens. Banished from the capital in 1414, this revolutionary prelate went, as ambassador of the Duke of Burgundy, to the Council of Constance (1415), where he intervened in favor of Jean Petit, the Burgundian tyrannicide. In 1418, as King’s master of petitions, he pleaded to obtain the provostship of Lille, vacant upon the death of Jean de Montreuil. On this occasion the University entreated the Pope to accord him the favor of uniting various incompatible benefices, citing his courage and his works for the good of the Church. He was next archdeacon of Reims, canon of Reims, Chartres, Châlons and Beauvais, chaplain of the chapel of the Dukes of Burgundy at Dijon, holder of the benefice of St. Clair in the diocese of Bayeux, all of which brought him about 2,000 livres a year. He obtained in addition the archdeaconate of Chalons. In 1419 Pierre Cauchon was réferendaire of Pope Martin V, whom he helped elect, then conservator of the privileges of the University of Paris.

Elected Bishop of Beauvais on August 21, 1420, on the recommendation of the University of Paris, and ecclesiastical. peer of the kingdom by favor of Philippe le Bon-who came himself to attend his taking of office — Pierre Cauchon served the English party from that time and followed Henry V to Paris, where he fought the Chapter and Bishop Courtecuisse. In Bedford’s confidence, an executor of the will of Charles VI, and councilor of Henry VI with a salary of 1,000 livres, Cauchon was guardian of the privy seal in the absence of the chancellor. He was in charge of important missions.

At Rouen, after 1426, Pierre Cauchon put in accord the Chapter and the Bishop on the subject of the Cardinalate. Expelled from Beauvais with the English (August, 1429), Cauchon fled to Rouen where he had already visited many times: the English indemnified him for the loss of his revenues and put him in charge of special missions in England, Paris, etc. was one of them. Pierre Cauchon did not, however, obtain the archbishopric of Rouen, which he had administered in matters spiritual and temporal, but he became Bishop of Lisieux in 1432. He lived for the most part at Rouen, near the Grand Council, of which he was a member.

As the Queen of England’s chancellor in France, Cauchon went to the Council of Bâle as a deputy of England in 1435, and was present at the Council of Arras where he sustained until the end the exclusive right of Henry VI to the crown of France. He was nearly captured at Paris, in the Bastille Saint Antoine, in 1436, when the French reëntered the capital.

In that year Pierre Cauchon received the commission to-call together at Caen the Three Estates and informed them of the King of England’s intention to found a university at Caen (Bibl. Nat. ms. fr. 26,061). He fulfilled numerous diplomatic missions relative to the English peace (the conferences of Calais and Gravelines). On July 29, 1437, he gave a receipt to the Treasurer-general of Normandy for 770 livres, the balance of a sum of 2,177 livres for a trip from Paris to Rouen in the King of England’s service (Bibl. Nat. ms. fr. 26,063). In 1439 and 1440 Pierre Cauchon was commissioned with several trips to Calais and to England to treat for peace between the two kingdoms, and concerning the deliverance of the duc d’Orléans.

Pierre Cauchon died suddenly, while he was being shaved, at his fine hotel Saint-Cande, on December 18, 1442, at the height of his honors. He left as heirs his nephew, Jean Bidault, canon of Reims and Lisieux, and Jeanne Bidault, wife of Jean de Rinel, secretary of Henry VI, whose name appears at the end of the Treaty of Troyes. Cauchon’s body was carried in state to Lisieux, accompanied by his friend and executor, Nicolas Caval, canon of Rouen. He was interred near the altar in the magnificent chapel of the Virgin which he had rebuilt and decorated at his own expense. It is remarkable to note that the admirable, Frenchman who succeeded him as Bishop of Beauvais, Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, a propos of the fidelity of the people of Beauvais to Charles VII, made but a brief allusion to his predecessor, and did not mention Jeanne’s trial in this connection: “And although they held your adversary for Lord, that was because the Lord Bishop was in this foolish error; but always they were your servants at heart. . .”


Jean Le Maistre, Magistri, Dominican, bachelor of theology from some university other, than Paris, was vicar of the Inquisitor of France in the diocese of Rouen from 1424. In 1431 we find him referred to as prior of the monastery of Preaching Brothers at Rouen, where he enjoyed a reputation as a preacher. He was still living at the time of the first investigations made at Rouen in Jeanne’s Rehabilitation (he preached a sermon in January, 1452); but it is probable that he was dead by 1455. At any rate, he was not consulted nor cited in the course of the second Procès.

He has been represented, by later historians, as acting on the threats of Pierre Cauchon, and even as speaking on the irregularities of the Trial. In truth he was less zealous than Jean Graverent, the Grand Inquisitor of France, at that time detained at Coutances by another trial, who ordered La Maistre to join Jeanne’s trial, and preached at Paris against remembrance of Jeanne. Le Maistre reserved his opinion on the matter of torture; but he condemned the monk Pierre Bosquier, who spoke critically of Jeanne’s sentence. On April 24, 1431, Jean Le Maistre received from the English government a gratuity Of 20 salus d’or “for his pains, labors and diligence in having been present and assisted at the trial.” He was, perhaps, simply a timid man, but entirely devoted to Cauchon, and but little convinced of the regularity of the Trial (at least according to the testimony of Nicolas de Houppeville). Jean de Maistre certainly hesitated in accepting the conduct of the business and he took the precaution of protecting himself behind the Inquisitor-general. On December 7, 1443, however, he preached to the people on the occasion of the election of Raoul Roussel as Archbishop of Rouen, Roussel who was one of Jeanne’s most English-minded judges, and successor to the Cardinal de Luxembourg.


Jean Graverent, Dominican, Grand Inquisitor of France: He was referred to in 1413 as master of theology of Paris, and was present at the Council of Paris where he gave an opinion in favor of appealing to the Pope the question of the propositions of Jean Petit. Inquisitor of the Faith from 1425 on, he succeeded Jacques Suzay, an event which du Boulay cites as of the year 1422 (Hist. Univ. Paris). On August 16, 1429, in the capacity of prior of the Jacobin monastery in Paris, Jean Graverent took the oath of loyalty to the English government before the Parlement of Paris. He directed the trial of Jean Le Couvreur, a burgess of Saint Lô, which was still in process on March 4, 1431; thus it was that this Dominican, whom one may believe very favorable to the Burgundian party, could not take part in . On July 4, 1431, Jean Graverent preached a sermon in Paris, accusing Brother Richard as a “beau père,” that is, the mentor, of four suspect female visionaries, among them the Maid.


Martin Billorin, Martinus Billorini, Dominican, professor of theology, was vice-gérant of the Grand Inquisitor. A licentiate in theology in 1416, maître régent at Paris in 1425, at the same time as Jean Beaupère he censured the propositions of Brother Jean Sarrasin, in March, 1430. He is also recorded as teaching in Paris in 1433


Philippe le Bon, son of Jean sans Peur, Grand duc de L’Occident. A magnificent prince, at the same time cunning and chivalrous, reigning over the most fertile and active provinces of the kingdom, and maintaining order there, he recognized Henry VI of England as King of France, and brought the body of his father, Jean sans Peur, from Montereau to the Chartreuse at Dijon. French in origin, Flemish at heart, and English by self-interest, Philippe was clever enough not to accept the regency of the kingdom; but he gave his sister to Bedford in marriage. It is well known how Gloucester’s aims for the territories of the north turned Philippe to the French party, to which, however, he never adhered completely. Philippe le Bon, wavering and ambitious, was nevertheless the arbiter of the Franco-English struggle and until the Treaty of Arras (1435) he conducted missions, embassies, truces and negotiations which were sometimes favorable to the efforts of the French party, sometimes discouraging, and which led finally to Jeanne’s destruction. Philippe acted at that time like an actual King of France, which he always half-way dreamed of being, according to the testimony of Chastellain who has left an unforgettable portrait of him: “His outward bearing only judged him to be emperor.”

It was thus that Philippe le Bon could receive the embassy from the besieged Orléannais, and recalled those of his subjects who were participating in the siege of that city, and then turn about and denounce at Reims a conspiracy on behalf of the French. Exhorted by the Maid to make peace, summoned by her to the coronation at Reims, Philippe le Bon concluded a treaty at Compiègne with the Dauphin, a treaty that Jeanne could not have accepted. He continued to levy troops and receive embassies. We know that he was at Compiègne when Jeanne was taken captive, and that he had conversation with her. He announced the news of her capture to the world and received from the English government the account of her trial at Rouen.

It is very singular, after all that, to see that the first witness in Jeanne’s favor after her condemnation is to be found in a manuscript which is dedicated to Philippe le Bon in 1440, in Martin Le Franc’s _Champion des Dames_. a debate in which the pro and con are set forth.


Jean de Luxembourg, Lord of Beaurevoir, comte de Ligny, was the younger brother of Cardinal de Luxembourg, Chancellor of England.

Governor of Arras in 1414, Jean de Luxembourg waged a cruel war on the French frontiers; he delivered Senlis in 1418, was wounded at Mons-en-Vimieu (1421), made many expeditions into Picardy and Hainault, was put in charge of the siege of Guise by Bedford, in 1424, led an Anglo-Burgundian expedition against the French forts of the Argonne and ravaged the Beauvais district. In August, 1429, at the head of an embassy, he went to Compiègne to bring the King false promises of peace. On February 20, 1430, he evacuated Peronne and formed the advance guard of Philippe le Bon, who was marching on Compiègne.

We know that the Bastard of Wandomme, who took Jeanne prisoner, served in the company of this captain: he turned Jeanne over to Jean de Luxembourg, who gave up the siege of Compiègne (which he had strategically invested with forts) thanks to the vigorous defense of captain Guillaume de Flavy. On October 26, Jean de Luxembourg had to follow the retreat of his troops, mortally wounded, and he left his artillery in de Flavy’s hands. Jeanne d’Arc was kept in his castle of Beaurevoir during the month of August.

Required to give her up to the English, Luxembourg at first refused, restrained from this villainy, perhaps, by his aunt. Later on he yielded her on the demands of Pierre Cauchon, and sold her to the English for 10,000 livres; he visited her later in her cell at Rouen.

The paid protector of the towns of Picardy, Jean de Luxembourg tried to shield them from the pillaging of de Flavy and the French captains; he refused to sign the Treaty of Arras in 1435, and continued to ravage, in reprisal, the country about Soissons and Laon (in 1436, La Hire took possession of Soissons). In 1437 we see him in agreement with Charles d’Orléans, who made him send his poursuivant d’armes, Porte Espy, from Blois in Picardy. This rough Burgundian condottiere died at the Château de Guise in 1440. The comte de Ligny is represented in the tournament of the Knights of the Torsion d’or in 1431.


Henry VI, the little son of Henry V and Catherine of France, was born at Windsor on December 6, 1421. In his name the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester governed in turn during the regency. Proclaimed King of France upon the death of Henry V, he received as “tutor” Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in 1428. He was crowned King of England on November 6, 1429, at Westminster. He arrived in France on April 23, 1430, On July 29, he made his entry into Rouen; then at Paris, on December 2, 1430, he made another triumphal entry.

On December 16, Henry was crowned King of France by Cardinal Beaufort at Nôtre Dame. We know how the consecration of Charles VII at Reims removed all significance from this ceremony. On the twenty-sixth the infant king left Paris for Rouen, where he resided all through .

Henry VI was unfortunate, especially after the breaking of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, in the attempts to maintain English rule in France. Peaceful by nature, and not very capable, and an object of suspicion to the English after his marriage to Margaret of Anjou, daughter of King René, Henry was discredited by the influence that the pacific Suffolk had in the government. Henry VI disappeared very mysteriously after having been shut up in the Tower of London (1471).


Martin V (Othon Colonna) was elected Pope in 1417. He was recognized by almost the entire kingdom. But Jean IV, Count of Armagnac, continued to have negotiations with the anti-pope, Benedict XIII, who on October 27, 1418, retired to the rock of Peñiscola, and who had accorded to the Count and his family a series of spiritual favors. In 1420 the rupture was complete. Upon the death of Benedict XIII in 1424, Jean IV of Armagnac supported Gilles Munoz, who took the title of Clement VIII.


Gilles de Duremort, Aegidius Duraemortis, Benedictine, most frequently referred to as the abbot of Fécamp, was a Cistercian monk of Beaubec and bachelor formé in theology when he was named abbot of Beaupré in 1403. Licentiate in theology in 1408 he became abbot of Beaubec in 1413; he was named abbot of Fécamp in 1423 and master regent of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, an office he held until about 1429. He became Bishop of Coutances in 1439. Gilles de Duremort died at Rouen on July 29, 1444, and was interred in the church of the priory of Saint Lô, which pertained to his diocese.

Gilles de Duremort was a man of considerable importance, and resided chiefly at Rouen, sometimes in the great hotel de Fécamp, sometimes in his hôtel in the parish of Saint Vincent. He had long enjoyed the entire confidence of the English government when in June, 1421, he was commissioned to intervene in favor of the University of Paris before Henry V. The Duke of Bedford sent him on an embassy in Burgundy to pacify the quarrel between Gloucester and the duc de Brabant in 1424. Gilles de Duremort went many times to England and to Burgundy before 1426. In 1427 he went on an embassy to Brittany. Appointed councilor of the English king, with the considerable salary of 2,000 livres, he took the oath of office in 1428. In 1429 Gilles de Duremort went to England on matters of state. In 1431 he was entrusted with the embassy to the Council of Bile. On November 16th of that year, Henry VI ordered the Treasurer-general, Thomas Blount, to pay the wages of ten lancers and thirty mounted archers who escorted the abbots of Fécamp and Mont Saint Michel and the Lord of Saint Pierre, who were summoned to Paris by the king. In 1438 he was designated as the ambassador of Henry VI to treat for peace with the King of France; on July 5, 1439, he was given 300 livres and sent on an embassy to Calais; in 144o he was given 250 livres from the English treasury as a quarter of his salary.

Gilles de Duremort was strongly allied with the Cardinal de Luxembourg, who named him among the executors of his will. He was one of the most assiduous judges at Jeanne’s trial, and upon the testimony of Jean Massieu himself, this regent in theology “seemed oftener to act through hatred of Jeanne and through love of the English than through zeal for justice.” In the session of May 29th Gilles de Duremort formulated the opinion, or rather, the death sentence, in which the assessors lost no time in joining him, without lengthy explanations.


Nicolas Le Roux, Ruffi, Benedictine, of a noble family of Rouen, entered the abbey of Jumièges towards 1395. He studied in Paris where he is mentioned as a bachelor of law in 1403; he received his doctorate in law in 1411. Ambassador to the councils of Pisa, Rome and Constance, this “worthy doctor” was recommended by the University to the Pope, to be named abbot of La Croix Saint Leufroy in 1412, and then abbot of Jumièges on September 28, 1418. He is to be found among the regents of the Faculty of Law in Paris in 1419, with Jean Garin and Raoul Roussel. He took the oath of loyalty to Henry V in 1420, and died (June 17, 1431) shortly after Jeanne d’Arc was burned at the stake. He left a personal fortune Of 32,000 livres which his relatives took away from the religious community of Jumièges although this sum had been reserved in accordance with his intentions for the restoration of that celebrated monastery, which had been greatly damaged by the war. Nicolas Le Roux had greatly cherished that abbey and he had attempted to reëstablish there the observance of the rules of the order. Le Roux had the reputation of a good administrator and that of a man of good character. He played only a secondary part in Jeanne’s trial, and agreed entirely with the University.


Pierre Miget or Muguet, also named de Glenesiis, Migecii, Benedictine, doctor of theology, was prior of Longueville-Giffard. Licentiate at Paris in 1413, he contested with Jean Bouesgue in 1416, before the Parlement on the subject of the priory of Gournay. Although master regent in theology, Pierre Miget resided constantly at Rouen, in the hôtel de Longueville, situated before the gates of the archbishop’s palace. In 1420 he obtained from King Henry V the restitution of the revenues of his benefice and he seems to have been strongly linked to Beaupère who entrusted to him the administration of his diocese in 1434. With this latter, also, he is to be found at Paris among the masters of the Faculty of Theology from 1421 on. There he must have known Erard Emengart, Nicolas Midi, Pierre de Houdenc, Martin Billorin, Pierre de Dyerée, Jean de Troyes, his confrères, who were all assessors at Jeanne’s trial.

Pierre Miget was very assiduous in the matter of the Trial, and he was in no way favorable to the accused. (In 1414 at the Council of Paris he showed himself as a zealous Burgundian and sustained the propositions of Jean Petit.) He testified as a witness at the Rehabilitation in 1452: but he declared that he wept at Jeanne’s death, of which he had been, however, one of the promoters. He testified that the sentence rendered against the Maid was unjust. In summary, he seriously accused the Bishop of Beauvais, whose accomplice he had been.


Raoul Roussel, born at Saultchevreuil near Villedieu, licentiate in law in 1416, was dean of the Faculty of Law at Paris from November, 1417, to January, IV% and was elected canon of Rouen in 1420. Treasurer the following year, he was deputized to the regent Bedford to obtain permission to proceed with the election of an archbishop, and he defended with care the canonical prerogatives. In 1424 Raoul Roussel was sent by Bedford on a mission to the Duke of Gloucester to pacify the quarrel between the latter and the duc de Brabant. Roussel fulfilled even military missions at times, since in August, 1428, in the capacity of master of petitions, he gave a receipt to Pierre Surreau, Receiver-general of Normandy, for an inspection of fortresses in lower Normandy. On November 7, 1429, his procureur declared to the Chapter of Nôtre Dame of Paris that he accepted the canonicate of the late Jean Gerson, who had remained faithful to the French cause.

Canon of Coutances, vicar-general at Rouen during the archiepiscopal vacancy (1429-1443), councilor master of petitions of the English king with a salary of at first :zoo livres, and later 300, twice ambassador to the French party to treat for peace (1435, 1438), Raoul Roussel received the Duke of York, lieutenant of the King of England in 1441, and addressed compliments to him in the cathedral of Rouen. Roussel succeeded Cardinal de Luxembourg as archbishop of Rouen in 1444. But he took the oath of fealty to Charles VII when that monarch entered Rouen. Roussel died December 31, 1452.

He was one of the most zealous judges at the Trial, and he actively adhered to the opinion of the University and the theologians. He must have been present at the preliminary investigations made for the Rehabilitation. It is well to remember that this strict legalist considered the Trial well conducted and that it was essential not to employ torture, which might bring it into bad repute.


Nicolas de Venderès, Lord of Beausseré, was born about 1372. Licentiate in law, he swore fidelity to Henry V and was received as a canon in the church at Rouen in 1422, and was made archdeacon of Eu. Since his name figures in the treaty of agreement of the city of Rouen with Henry V (January 13, 1419), we may believe that he was one of the first Norman ecclesiastics to adhere to the English government. Vicar of Mgr. Louis d’Harcourt, with a salary of 120 livres (1412-1422), vicar sede vacante (1429-1431) he was nearly elected archbishop of Rouen after the death of Louis d’Harcourt (the majority of the canons having voted for him for that office) and he was at one time considered as such. Nicolas de Venderès enjoyed also the office of curé of Gisors. He died at Rouen on the first of August, 1438. For executors of his will he had André Marguerie, Nicolas Caval and Jean Mahommet, priest, all among Jeanne’s judges (Arch. de la Seine Inférieure G. 2089). Venderès was very zealous in the affair of the Maid. He was a familiar of Pierre Cauchon. He judged as did his masters in the matter of the twelve articles, and like Raoul Roussel, at the time of Jeanne’s relapse, he held that the trial had lasted too long.


Robert Le Barbier, Barberii, born about 1388, master of arts, licentiate in both canon and civil law, became canon of Rouen in 1419. He was, on various occasions, a deputy to the provincial Estates. He died at Rouen on August :29, 1444, and was buried in the cathedral. Robert Le Barbier did not like to make a decision and he was especially afraid of compromising himself. He agreed in turn with Erart, Gilles Deschamps, and the Faculty of Theology.


Nicolas Couppequesne, of the diocese of Rouen, referred to as master of arts in 1403, bachelor of theology, was rector, for the Chapter, of the great grammar schools of Rouen in 1417. He became canon of the cathedral in 1423 in place of Jean d’Étampes who remained loyal to France, Couppequesne was curé of Hermanville and Saint Pierre d’Yvetot, and became pénitencier of the diocese in the vacancy of the archbishop’s See. He died intestate, on July 10, 1442

He was certainly an educated person and very agreeable to the English government, since, on June 5, 1430, when advised of the near approach of the King of England, the Chapter of Rouen decided that Nicolas Couppequesne should welcome the King in case Pierre Maurice were not able to do it. A few months afterwards, when Bedford was received as canon, this worthy grammarian complimented the noble duke, and received for his pains a gallon of wine worth six shillings eight pence. A short while before he was summoned to take part in the Trial, Nicolas Couppequesne published at the library of the Chapter a book entitled Lyrenensis Lugdunensis contra hereses (August 4, 1430). In his judgment Nicolas Couppequesne invoked especially the authority of the University of Paris.


Nicolas Loiseleur, Aucupis, was born at Chartres in 1930, and was master of arts at Paris in 1403. He was not admitted as bachelor of theology until October, 1431. Already canon of Chartres in 1421, he was made a canon of Rouen in the place of Martin Ravenot, who remained faithful to France. He fulfilled for the Chapter many delicate missions, going to Paris, for example, to take part in various trials. On July 8, 1429, he was delegated, with Baudribosc and Basset, by the Chapter of Rouen to deliberate the matter of an embassy to Rome. He was, without doubt, a man greatly regarded by the English government.

A deputy to the Council of Bâle with Midi and Beaupère, Nicolas Loiseleur went from Rouen to Paris “for the liberties of the Church”. He did not attend the Council before 1435, when he sustained with the University men and the clergy of Charles VII the theory of the preeminence of the General Council over the Pope. This was no longer the opinion of the English government nor that of the Chapter of Rouen, which sought to have its ambassador return. He was, seemingly, rather badly received in England, where Henry VI secretly supported Eugene IV. Nicolas Loiseleur was later, in 1438, recalled, on two occasions. In 1439 the Fathers at the Council sent him, as lawyer, to the Diet at Mayence; in 1440 by sentence of the court of Rome, he was deprived of his benefice as canon of Rouen. He lived at Rouen, in the rue de la Chaine (the present-day Place des Carmes) in a house of which his brother-in-law, Pierre Le Marie, and his sister Thomasse were the concièrges. Cauchon was one of his frequent visitors. He died at Bâle, after 1442 and before the Rehabilitation proceedings.

Nicolas Loiseleur, intimate friend of Pierre Cauchon, was equally linked to Nicolas Midi, one of Jeanne’s bitterest enemies; he played a perfectly odious rôle in the Trial, that of the false confessor, but completely in accordance with inquisitorial procedure. (Eymeric, Directorium Inquisitorium, Romae, 1585, p. 466, Col. 2, cautela nova) G. Colles assures us, none the less, that he wept while witnessing her death. But this much is certain, that he was not banished from Rouen, as has been written of him, nor was consideration of him subject to any attainder because of any conduct of his during the Trial. He is mentioned as a Norman by Pius 11 (de Gestis Basil concilii, in the Opera omnia, Basileae, 1551).


Jean d’Estivet, called Benedicité promoter-general of the diocese of Beauvais, was canon of Beauvais and Bayeux. On January 16, 143o, he was named canon of Bayeux and was declared by Pierre Cauchon exempt from the tithes to be levied on the clergy in capacity of student of law at the University of Paris. One finds him later at Rouen, where, on April 25, 1437, he obtained a canonial prebend.

He was a former student of law at the University of Paris, intimately connected with Pierre Cauchon, and like him was a fugitive. He was an evil man, even according to Manchon’s testimony. He was one of Jeanne’s most obstinate judges. He insulted her in prison, treating her as a prostitute. Entirely devoted to the English, Jean d’Estivet insinuated himself into Jeanne’s cell, like Loiseleur, pretending to be another prisoner. According to Guillaume Manchon, it was he who sent the Twelve Articles to Paris without completely correcting them. He is the author of the list of charges, read at the session of March 27th, and he ordered Jeanne to be taken back to the castle of Rouen after the abjuration. The recorders, whom he paid for their work, detested him, for he was so overbearing with them. Boisguillaume charged him with great responsibility in his testimony at Jeanne’s Rehabilitation: “And believed that God, at the end of his life, punished him, for he ended miserably: he was found dead in a certain sewer outside the Rouen gate.” This accident, which happened on October 20, 1438, was fabulously interpreted as punishment for his conduct during the Trial, but Jean d’Estivet was at that time the holder of many benefices.


Jean de La Fontaine, de Fonte, clerk of the diocese of Bayeux described in 1403 as master of arts and student in law, was bachelor and promoter of the University in 1421, and was sent to Bedford and Henry VI in 1422 to obtain confirmation of the privileges of the University; he was licentiate in law at Paris in 1424. In 1427, with Guillaume Colles, Manchon and Robert Guérould, he edited the transaction, made with great care by Pierre Cauchon, between the Archbishop and the Chapter of Rouen. Jean de La Fontaine read, in 1436, Charles VII’s confirmation of the privileges of the University.

Commissioned assistant counselor of the Trial, delegated by Pierre Cauchon to question Jeanne, La Fontaine advised her to submit to the Church. Upon the testimony of Manchon and Massieu, which need not be taken too literally, he had to flee Rouen under the threats of Cauchon, who found him too favorable to the accused. We do know also that he was a friend of Nicolas de Houppeville, to whom he passed a letter while the latter was in prison. A Guillaume de La Fontaine was cited as lieutenant-general of Jean Salvain, Bailly of Rouen in 1432. A Jacques de La Fontaine, bachelor of law, secretary and intimate friend of the Pope, was, on March 27, 1429, occupied in the matter of exchanging his canonicate of Beauvais.


Guillaume Colles, called Boisguillaume, and more often, Boscguillaume, of the Colles de Boisguillaume family, was a recorder of the Trial, and a notary of the ecclesiastical court of Rouen.

As early as 1424 one sees the name of Guillaume Colles as the signature of a writ of excommunication. Boisguillaume is to be found as the notary of the inquisitorial trial of Jean Seguent, held by Jean Graverent between July and November, 1430. In 1421, he is cited as curé of Nôtre Dame de la Ronde (a benefice at the disposition of the King of England), and he signed the act by which the members of the clergy of Rouen, assembled in the archbishop’s chapel, declared vacant the benefices of their confrères who lived in the territory loyal to the Dauphin. A further reference is made when the court of Rouen is ordered by Henry VI to make an inventory of his property. He was then cited as cure of Nôtre Dame near Bernay, “under sentence of excommunication, aggravated and further aggravated . . . obstinate and a bad example to our mother the Church.” This sale of his property was ordered so that the money might be employed for the benefit of his absolution. Guillaume Colles lived at Rouen in the parish of Saint Nicolas. He was a witness at the Rehabilitation, and on December 18 1456, gave details on the work of the notaries, declaring that the Trial had been made at the expense of the English, recognizing the documents that were presented to him, and revealing the trickeries of Nicolas Loiseleur and Jean d’Estivet.


Guillaume Manchon, recorder of the Trial, notary of the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, was a canon of Rouen and Evreux, curé of Saint Martin de Vitefleur, and later of Saint Nicolas of Rouen, and almoner of the Confrèrie de la Calende of the Doyenne de la Chrétienté of Rouen.

Court promoter, from 1437 to 1443, he prosecuted the matter in which Jean Massieu was accused of being bad-mannered; in this capacity he visited the abbeys and priories of the diocese in 144o, and is cited as promoter; in 1453 he was in charge of taxes and disbursements. He died on December 9, 1456.

We find that, on September 21, 1440, Guillaume de Croisemare, Bailly of La Madeleine at Rouen, attested to certain of his endowments:

Guillaume Manchon is cited as notary of the court of Rouen, cure of Vitefleur since October 31, 1436, canon of Evreux, promoter of the ecclesiastical court of Louis de Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen, premier chaplain by election and appointment of the brothers of the company of notaries, (September 13, 1440). Among the witnesses cited we encounter Pierre Cochon, cure of Vitefleur, notary of the spiritual court of Rouen. We see the signatures of Manchon and Nicolas Taquel on the original act of foundation, 1436. A commission, given in the month of October, 1445, by the commissioners on the matter of incomes pertaining to churchmen, indicates that he was charged to receive the fruits of the revenues “of curacies situate within the diocese of Rouen, of which the curés are absent and living outside of the jurisdiction of the king.” Guillaume Manchon, who delivered into the hands of the judges of the Rehabilitation the minutes of the Trial, testified before them in 1450, 1452 and 1456. He testified with prudence, and accused the Bishop and the English.


Jean Massieu, priest, doyen, served as bailiff during the Trial. We see that on October 1′, ‘1430, that the city of Rouen recognized a debt Of .47-los, a sum which he had loaned the city. He is called the dean of la £7.10 s, of Rouen, in 1431; that is, according to Quicherat, syndic of the priests of the division of the diocese calling itself the Doyenné de la Chrétienté On February 3, 1431, Jean Massieu was fined for having received money in the cemetery of the cathedral, exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, from certain priests and clerks cited by him. Massieu made many trips to Bâle in the matter of the “liberties of the Church”; in 1434 he was sent to locate a malefactor. We discover that action is taken against Thomas Milton, chaplain of the Lord of Fauquemberge and Jean Massieu, former dean of la Chrétienté, for bad manners. Jean Massieu, priest of the parish of Saint-Maclou, is prosecuted later for misconduct. In 1450 he is referred to as a canon, cure of Saint Cande le Vieux, upon the endowment Of 300 livres by Pierre Cauchon, in honor of the Holy Sacrament.

Jean Massieu testified in 1450 and was a witness at the Rehabilitation, on December 17, 1455. He was then said to be about fifty years old. He denounced the hatred the English bore Jeanne, and accused Pierre Cauchon of extreme docility in respect to them.


Vincent Le Fourbeur of Meaux, was a clerk, bachelor of law, and notary of the University. He is to be found in this same capacity in 1433.


Michel Hébert, master of arts, was a notary of the University. Reference is made of him in this capacity as early as 1422. Guillaume Nicolay is cited, in 1449, as the new scribe elected in the place of the late Hébert, who died on August 6, at the Hôtel Dieu, “of great poverty and sickness.”


One first meets the Bastard of Wandomme in the army of Jean de Luxembourg, who laid siege to Beaumont-en-Argonne, on April 8, 1428. May 74, 1430, the day after capturing Jeanne, he received from the war treasurer of Burgundy the sum Of 277 livres for his reward. He is ranked as a squire, and had under him six men-at-arms and sixty-two yeomen.

Seven years before the capture of Jeanne, the Bastard of Wandomme distinguished himself in a tourney, fighting on foot, with a battle-axe, against a French knight; some time later in a real battle he was gravely wounded by the splintering of a lance and was left with a crippled arm.


Nicolas, or rather, Colard de Mailly, Lord of Blangy-sur-Somme and of Conty, belonged to the party of the Duke of Burgundy. Captain of Saint-Riquier, which had just been surrendered by the Lord of Offémont, (1422) he received from the English king, in 1423, on the recommendation of the Duke of Bedford, the seigneurie of Rambures, seized by d’Harcourt’s men; then after the siege of Guise (1424) he received likewise the lands of Jean de Coucy. In January 1426, Colard de Mailly was created Bailly of Vermandois. That same year he took part in the siege of Mortagne in the retinue of the Earl of Salisbury and later in the Argonne campaign. On July 10, 1428, he wrote to the inhabitants of Reims to urge their obedience to the Burgundians. Colard never changed, as has been written of him, to loyalty to the King of France. He retired to Chauny, in the fortress of Charles d’Orléans, from which, in 1431, the inhabitants routed him. We find later mention of him as ambassador of the King of England at the Council of Arras; in 1441 he was among Jean de Luxembourg‘s men at the siege of Pontoise. He died about 1457.


Jean de Pressy, from Artois, knight: We find mention of a Jean de Pressy, King’s treasurer of war in 141o among those who assisted the Duke of Burgundy in 1419 in his counsel at Arras “on the matter of the treaty with England.” In 1425 he is called counselor of the grand Council of the King, and rendered his expenses for the trip he had made to Champagne to raise aid and to pay the men-at-arms employed at the siege of Moynier. On this mission he must have met Pierre Cauchon who was also employed in it. Jean de Pressy is mentioned among the lords of the entourage of little Henry VI during the sojourn he made at the castle of Rouen from July 29, 1430, to November 20, 1431, and he figures among the members of the Grand Council. He accompanied the young prince to Paris. A Jacques de Pressy was at that time canon of the cathedral of Beauvais.


Nicolas Rolin, of a burgess family, was the lawyer of Jean sans Peur, and presented at the lit de justice of 1420 conclusions relative to the murder at Montereau. Chancellor of Burgundy (1422), he was a sort of minister to Philippe le Bon and conducted all his diplomacy until the Treaty of Arras. Enormously rich, Nicolas Rolin fell in disgrace under the hatred of the Burgundian nobility. He was capable, and as obstinate as he was hard. We have every reason to believe that Philippe le Bon regarded him as another like himself. We know that Nicolas Rolin was educated, and that he contributed to the founding of the universities of Dôle and Louvain; he had luxurious tastes and was a protector of the arts. He built at Dijon the hôtels d’Autun and de Dijon; in his seigneurie the Château d’Authume; at Beaune he built the celebrated hospital. Nicolas Rolin is represented in the magnificent picture by Jan van Eyck in the Louvre: La Vièrge au donateur; on the altar-screen at Beaune he is portrayed by Roger de La Pasture.


Jean de Rinel, nephew by marriage of Bishop Cauchon, was notary of the Grand Council and secretary to the King of England. Jean de Rinel is mentioned as present at a dinner offered by the Chapter of Rouen in 1413. He signed an order of the Duke of Bedford in 1424, and another in 1428. Jean de Rinel received a prebend, by the procureur, Jean d’Estivet, as canon of Beauvais, on May 25, 1437. On September 3, 1434, he is described as secretary to the King and he received 4 livres a day as his regular salary in the course of a trip he was about to make, from Vire to Savigny, to meet Richard Venables and other men-at-arms and yeomen who were at the abbey of Savigny. Jean de Rinel accompanied his uncle, Pierre Cauchon in 1439 when they went to England. In 1443 he was said to have been twenty-four years in the King’s service and he obtained ten gold nobles to consecrate to pious work.

Jean de Rinel’s wife was Jeanne Bidault; sister of Jean Bidault, archdeacon of Auge and the church of Lisieux, canon of Rouen and nephew of Pierre Cauchon. The great house of the Rinels was situated in the rue de la Chaine at Rouen, in the present-day rue des Carmes. Another Jean de Rinel was notary and secretary of the King in 1446.


There are two personages of this name who are to be found as notaries in an act of 1438. (_Arch. de la Seine-Inférieure_, G. 3668)

Robert Guérould, mentioned as notary as early as 1420, edited about 1424 the capitulary registers, and kept them until 1441. He is cited as secretary of the promoter of the archbishopric in 1447. He signed his account, in 1450, with Gilles Deschamps and Raoul Roussel. He is mentioned as Clerk of the archbishop’s court between 1453 and 1456. lie was still living in 1460. He was completely in the confidence of Raoul Roussel, whose secretary he was, and also an executor of his will in 1452. A Robert Guérroult is – mentioned as cavalry sergeant at le Châtelet in Paris in 1433


Jean Rubé, canon of Rouen, is mentioned in an account of 1426-7 as paymaster of the Chapter: he delegated Jean Volet, priest, as receiver of the vicarage of Pontoise. The following year he signed the construction accounts of the cathedral of Rouen, and again in 1431-32. Pierre Cauchon lived in his house, near Saint Nicolas le Painteur, during the Trial.


William Haiton, better spelled Heton, English, bachelor of theology, was the English king’s secretary of requests. He went to the court of France in 141q as ambassador of Henry V to arrange the marriage of that king with Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. He was part of the English Council in 1431, but he was deprived of his office of secretary on March 1, 1433. He is mentioned in 1445 (_Calendar of patent rolls . Henry VI_, Vol. IV). William Heton held the same opinion of the Trial as did Gilles de Duremort, Abbot of Fécamp, his colleague in the King’s Council.


Jean Beaupère, Pulchipatris, was born in the diocese of Nevers. Master of arts about 1397, he finished his first course in the Bible in 1407, after having studied theology. He is referred to as bachelor formé in theology in 141g, and licentiate at the end of that year. He was a man of considerable importance, having been rector of the University in 1412 and 1413. He fulfilled the functions of chancellor in the absence of Gerson. In 1415, one finds him at Constance, with Pierre Cauchon, among the Burgundian ambassadors. On July 30, 142o, by apostolic favor Jean Beaupère was named canon of Nôtre Dame in Paris in place of Jean Charreton: his confrères at first protested against his intrusion in the choir. On June 27, 142o, he took possession at Beauvais of the canonicate of Eustache de Laître; in 141q he was sent to Troyes with Pierre Cauchon to advise Charles VI. In 1422 he went on an embassy to the Queen of England and the Duke of Gloucester to obtain confirmation of the privileges of the University. In 1423, en route between Paris and Beauvais he was attacked by “brigands” who robbed him and left him for dead. He was badly hurt, and at least deprived of the use of his right hand, and could not occupy his benefices. Jean Beaupère received from Martin V a grant for his canonicates of Besançon, Sens, Paris, Beauvais, and the archdiaconate of Salins (March, 1424). Nominated, on September 6, 1430, canon of Rouen by Henry VI, he received, on April 21 1431, an honorarium from the English government Of 30 livres. In 1432 he was cellarer at Sens, canon of Besançon, Paris, Laon, and Rouen, chaplain of Brie; and he was asking to be, in addition, canon of Autun, curé of Saint-Jean-en-Grève, sacristan of Saint-Merry at Paris, canon of Lisieux, etc.! He left Rouen on May 28, 1431, to go to the Council of Bâle, where he arrived on November 2, 1431 (in 1424 he had been sent to the Council of Sienna). He played a very important rôle there, since he was designated to demonstrate to the Pope the necessity of his coming to Bâle, which he did with vehemence. the Fathers of Bâle sent him as ambassador to Philippe le Bon in 1432; in 1435 we see that he received a fresh testimonial of the gratitude of the English. Having taken part very actively against the Pope, Beaupère who had been disavowed by the Chapter of Rouen in 1438, had to protest his orthodoxy to keep his canonicate at Rouen; and when the city returned to French domination, in 1450, he invoked his title as a good Frenchman. Jean Beaupère resided chiefly at Besan in a country that was not disloyal to the French King. He must have died in 1462 or 1463 at Besançon.

Beaupère, very active in the Trial, a man of authority and tractable at the same time, played a considerable part in this drama. It was he who was sent to Paris to seek the opinion of the University. He testified in 1452 at the time of the preliminary investigations for the Rehabilitation and maintained his opinion on the natural causes of Jeanne’s visions, developing the theory of the malice inherent in feminine nature.


Jacques de Touraine, or Le Teissier, Textoris, Friar Minor, was a licentiate in theology in 1422, and later maître regent. In a text written about 1432 or 1433, the University celebrates the greatness of his learning and the purity of his manners.

Summoned to Paris for Jeanne’s Trial, Jacques de Touraine was a very active and partial judge. It was he who took to the University, on behalf of Pierre Cauchon, the papers of the Trial, and edited the rough draft of the questions which were to be asked by those present. He was, at Paris, the colleague of Pierre Maurice, Guillaume Erart, Giovanni da Fano and other of Jeanne’s judges. He was still living in 1436.


Nicolas Midi, licentiate in theology in 1424, was named by Henry VI as canon of Rouen on April 21, 1431, and he was installed there eleven days before the burning of Jeanne. On June it, the canons accorded to him remission of the right of annates, as they had in the case of Jean Beaupère, “by special grace, because of the services he had rendered the Church.” Nicolas Midi addressed King Henry VI upon his entry into Paris in December, 1431, as delegate of the University. He was sent to the Council of Bâle in 1432, and became rector of the University of Louvain in 1433. About 1434 he contracted leprosy and had to resign all his commissions and his canonicate, but he retained the revenues from them. Midi was still living on November 8, 1438A convinced Burgundian, (in 1416 he had debated in favor of the propositions of Jean Petit with the Nation of Normandy) he was a fanatic supporter of the University (from IV% he was rector of the University of Paris). A terrible malady that he contracted was early interpreted, and in an entirely legendary way, as the sign of divine punishment merited for his role in the Trial: for he was the author of the Twelve Articles summing up misleadingly the doctrine said to be Jeanne’s, and he was one of Bedford’s confidential friends. (On May 12, 1432, out of regard for the Regent, the Chapter of Rouen decided that Nicolas Midi, sent to the Council of Bile, should receive the money distributions as if he were present.) If Pierre Maurice did not wish to accept the commission of going to the Council, Nicolas Midi was urged to take his place. (Arch. de la Seine-Inférieure, G. 2126).


Pierre Maurice, Mauricii, received first rank among the candidates for the theological license in January, 1429, and the first rank among those taking the master’s degree on May 23 of the same year. On January II, 1430, by letters of Henry VI, he was named to a canonicate in the church of Rouen which an Englishman named Heton resigned in his favor.

This notorious young theologian was already strongly tied to the English government, since he had obtained from Henry VI the benefice of Saint Sebastien de Préaux, in the diocese of Lisieux. He was curé of Yerville, and exchanged that benefice for that of the chapel of Saint Pierre in the cathedral of Rouen; he was curé of Paluel, and also chaplain of the chapel of Saint Mathurin at the cathedral. On June 5, 1430, he was designated by the canons to speak in their name at the ceremonies attending the entrance of Henry VI into the cathedral. He was elected to plead with the Cardinal of England [Winchester] in their name on behalf of Louis de Luxembourg’s candidacy for the vacant archbishopric of Rouen (December 3). He was delegated in 1431 to accompany Pasquier de Vaux, ambassador of the English king to Rome, and he went to Bile in 1434 as ambassador of Henry VI, and the following year he went to England at the order of the Council. Named vicar-general on December 5, 1436, he died shortly afterwards. The thirty-two precious manuscripts that he owned were willed to the library of the Chapter of Rouen; among them were a Terence, a Virgil, a Vegetius, and a beautiful breviary which Louis de Luxembourg bought. This educated theologian was very active in the Trial and he displayed a zeal in trying to enlighten Jeanne which does not seem to have been very sincere.


Gérard Feuillet, Feuleti de Salinis, Fuleti, Friar Minor, bachelor at Paris in 1425, was licentiate in theology in December, 1429, and received his master’s degree on March 30, 1430. This professor of theology was one of the masters who worked upon the editing of the articles of accusation in the Trial and who went to Paris to report the conclusions to the Duke of Bedford and the University.


Thomas de Courcelles, born at Amiens in 1393, notorious University man, rector of the Faculty of Law in 1426, bachelor of theology of the University of Paris, taught theology there for many years; he died in 1469, dean of the Chapter of Nôtre Dame.

Rector of the University in 1430, he went in this capacity to the court of Rome; he was sent to Arras, where he spoke for peace in 1435, and “Proposed so many fine and solemn words that . it seemed as if an angel of God were speaking, and of those present many were moved to tears.” At the Council of Bâle, Thomas de Courcelles shone as one of the lights of the French church (1433-1438). In 1433, in spite of the plague which infested Bâle, he remained at his post. He was delegated by the Council to contribute to the election of the next Pope. He was among those who declared the Pope was an apostate, in July, 1439; he was sent by the Fathers to the Diet of Mayence for the election of a new Pope; in December, at Thonon, Thomas de Courcelles made an address before the anti-pope Felix V which resulted in 1444 in a promotion of cardinals. In 144o he explained eloquently, before Charles VII at Bourges, the doctrine of the French church. On July 18, 1442, at Saint Magloire, he preached before the people the solemn sermon which put an end to the troubles of the University, announcing that the King “had liberally reconfirmed and given anew to our mother the University all her privileges.” On July 17, 1447, he returned to the Chapter of Nôtre Dame at Paris where he was received as canon on September 11th There were already in this Chapter a Guillaume de Courcelles, named Chancellor in 1425 in place of Jean Gerson, and Jean de Courcelles, referred to as doctor of law and archdeacon of Josas through the King’s favor, who had been canon since July 23, 1446; he was a brother of Thomas. In August, 1447, Thomas de Courcelles was at Lyons among the ambassadors who were negotiating for the renunciation of Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. In a letter of April 8, 1448, Gerard Machet, confessor of Charles VII, states that Thomas de Courcelles was entrusted with the Pope’s verbal commissions. Courcelles went to Rome to be near Nicolas V and took the title of archdeacon of the Pope. In 1458 he is called dean of Nôtre Dame. In 145o he spoke against the founding of a university at Caen. He was at that time in possession of an accumulation of benefices.

The rôle that he enjoyed in the Trial, where he gave a judgment favorable to torturing Jeanne, is well known. This young prelate with a significant, promised future, this cleric “very solemn and excellent,” enjoyed the full confidence of Pierre Cauchon, who later put him in charge of translating the minutes of the Trial into Latin. Questioned in 1456 at the Rehabilitation proceedings, this remarkable doctor, whose eloquence was boasted about by his contemporaries and remarked on his tombstone, lost his memory! Thomas de Courcelles was doubtless embarrassed by the Trial, and afterwards, during the definitive editing of that document, he suppressed his name wherever it had figured in the French minutes. He tried to give the impression that he had taken little part in the Trial, which was false. But he was considerably less of a fanatic than Pierre Cauchon and Guillaume Erart.


Martin Lavenu, or Ladvenu, Dominican, from the Jacobin monastery at Rouen, who sought to enlighten Jeanne, was her confessor, and her spiritual adviser in prison. Very little is known about Martin Ladvenu. He was in Paris at the time of the trial of Gilles Deschamps, one of Jeanne’s judges. The following year at Neufchatel he lectured a sorceress, Jeanne Vaneril, suspect in matters of faith. He was described, in 1452, at the time of the preliminary process of the Rehabilitation, as a friar of the monastery of the Jacobins at Rouen, “especial confessor and adviser of the maid Jeanne in her last days.”


Jean de Châtillon, de Castellione, de Castilliono, de Chasteillon, and better, Jean Hulot de Châtillon, (he is so designated in his opinion concerning Jeanne), was archdeacon of Evreux, and later canon. He is not to be confused with the Italian Jean de Castiglione who became Bishop of Coutances in 1444

He had long been at the University; in 1403, he was said to be master of arts and bachelor of theology, and he must have been the comrade of Pierre Cauchon and Jean Beaupère at Paris. In 1418 he took part in the council which ended the charter of liberties of the French church. He was teaching at the University of Paris on the Faculty of Theology in 1428, at the same time as Pierre de Dyerée, Guillaume Erart, and Guillaume. Adelie. He was already living at Rouen and was a doctor of theology before the Trial, and enjoyed some influence with members of the English government. In 1433 he received a canonicate at the cathedral, vacant upon the death of Couppequesne, by virtue of letters of the King. In 1437 he became as well archdeacon of Vexin-Normand. It is not known what relationship he was to Guillaume, Lord of Châtillon, who is said to have conquered Château Thierry for the English king in August, 1426.

It is not very probable that he was threatened by Pierre Cauchon and evicted from sessions of the Trial as Jean Massieu reported at the Rehabilitation proceedings. Very zealous in the Trial, he seems to have contented himself with disapproving of certain captious questions put to the accused. It was he who was in charge of admonishing the Maid on May 2nd.


Jean de Nibat, Friar Minor, licentiate in theology in 1424, was maître regent at Paris from 1426 on. He was a zealous judge at the Trial, and accepted, with the doctors of Paris, the soundness of the Twelve Articles.


Jacques Guesdon, Friar Minor, was the brother guardian of the monastery at Rouen in 1427. He explained to the Pope that after having been excommunicated by Jean Guesdon, provincial of the order in France, he had studied theology at Paris for eight years, and that the provincial chapter had designated him to “read the Bible.” It is, therefore, not very likely that he could have been master of theology by 1431, at least at the University of Paris. This Cordelier was very active at the Trial. It is not known what relationship he bore to Laurent Guesdon, lieutenant-general to Raoul Bouteiller, Bailly of Rouen at that time, and later lieutenant-general to the Bailly of Gisors.


Jean Le Fèvre, Fabri, was a hermit of Saint Augustin. On January 23, 1414, he was commissioned, with Jean Fouquerel, to correct the psalters. He was present at the reception of Pierre Cauchon as Bishop of Beauvais. Licentiate in theology on March 13, 1426, and master on October 15, he was teaching at Paris at the same time as Erard Emengart, Jean Beaupère Nicolas Midi, and Jacques de Touraine. He was pénitencier of the church of Rouen under Monsignor de Luxembourg and he was authorized, as a notable person, to have a key to the library of the Chapter and to work there. He was named Bishop of Demetriade on January 13, 1451, and died at Rouen in 1463

He appears to have enjoyed a rather considerable reputation as a preacher, and he preached notably against the French on the occasion of the sieges of Meaux and Pontoise. It was he who performed the mass in the choir of Nôtre Dame at the time of the death of Cardinal de Luxembourg.

Le Fèvre was one of the most diligent judges at the Trial; he testified in a somewhat embarrassed fashion at the inquiry relative to the Rehabilitation; but it is proved that he showed some zeal in her favor, and that he sat very regularly as a subdelegated judge at the Rehabilitation proceedings.


Du Quesnay, de Quesneio, given as Maurice Duchesne, de Quercu, in the French Minutes of the Trial.

We find a Jean de Quesneio, cursor in theology in 1426, at the same time as Guillaume Erard, licentiate in theology in 1429. He is said to be master of theology on March 30, 1430, and sat at the trial of Friar Minor Jean Sarrasin beside Jean Beaupère Martin Billorin, Guillaume Erard, all judges of the Maid, and he is often mentioned in the petitions of the Vatican. In the month of September, 143o, he figures among the master regents of the University of Paris. We find him later as abbot of Bec-Hellouin, and canon of La Saussaye in the diocese of Evreux, and then, in 1434, among the members of the Council of Bâle. But, if this is the Du Quesnay in question, it does not explain the name Maurice which is given him in the French minutes, or the form de Quercu, for his surname.


Guillaume Le Boucher, Boucherii, Carmelite, was made a licentiate in theology at the University of Paris in December, 1413; he is referred to as doctor at the time of the Trial. He was then living in his house at Rouen, and had lived there since 1422. Guillaume Le Boucher was very diligent at the Trial and he judged Jeanne to be an apostate and guilty of heresy. He pretended to depend on the authority of Gilles de Duremort, Abbot of Fécamp.


Pierre Houdenc, or as frequently written de Houdenc, Carmelite, became a licentiate in theology at the University of Paris in March, 1424, and received his master’s degree on the 21st of November. He was thus a comrade of Jean de Nibat and Nicolas Midi, who obtained their licentiates at the same time as he. In 1431 he was prior of the Carmelite order at Rouen, and was very closely linked to the Duke of Bedford who passed for the founder of the Carmelite house and was at all events its benefactor. Pierre de Houdenc could not refuse anything to one from whom he accepted donations.

It is certain that Pierre de Houdenc was one of the most diligent judges at the Trial, and was very zealous in pursuing the destruction of the Maid.


Richard Praty, an Englishman, was mentioned as among the religious who tried between the months of July and November, 1430, at Rouen the case of Jean Seguent in matters of faith. He was dean of the royal chapel and chancellor of the church at Salisbury, and was named Bishop of Chichester by Eugene IV, on April 21, 1438. He died sometime before September 12, 1445 (Calendar of Patent Rolls . Henry VI, IF).


Guillaume de Conti, Benedictine, was provost of Cérisy, and abbot of Saint Pierre de Lagny in 1423, and abbot of Sainte Catherine du Mont at Rouen in 1429. Licentiate in law in 1422, he was a University delegate to the Council in 1423; master of arts in 1424, he taught at Paris after that time. He was dean of the Faculty of Law from November, 1431, until May, 1432, when he left to attend the Council of Bâle. In 1434, the University delegated him, with Thomas de Courcelles, to go to Arras to treat for peace. In 1436, in April, he was designated as ambassador of the University to congratulate Charles VII on the occasion of the taking of Paris. Guillaume de Conti died in 145:z, after swearing allegiance to Charles VII.


Guillaume Bonnel, Benedictine, of the diocese of Lisieux, was abbot of Cormeilles after 1408. He studied law in Paris under Jean, abbot of Saint Taurin, from 1426 to 1428, when he received his doctorate. On and after November 6, 1432, he was dean of the Faculty of Law. He swore allegiance to Henry V in 1418, and died in 1437,


Jean Garin, Guarin, and also spelled Guerin, in Latin written both Garini and Guerini, was a descendant of an ancient law family. Doctor of law in 1415, dean of the Faculty of Law from January, 1419, to November 1422, named by Henry VI to a canonial prebend in the church at Rouen, he was, in 1423 and 1430, a deputy to the Estates of Normandy. He was in charge of installing the library of the Chapter at Rouen. Jean Garin exercised the functions of treasurer of the archbishopric from 1429, and he is described also as archdeacon of Veulguessin le François. He died at Bâle in 1433

Naturally the opinion of this lawyer conformed to the opinion of the Faculty of Law. In the final sentence Jean Garin followed the opinion of the Abbot of Fécamp, Gilles de Duremort.


Richard de Grouchet, master of arts, is referred to in a register of the University in 1403. He taught grammar at Rouen. Bachelor of theology, he preached in the cathedral in 1439 and obtained by favor of the Chapter one of the keys to the library. He was one of those designated by the Chapter to make up the embassy to Bâle.

Very diligent in the Trial, Richard de Grouchet was cited as a witness at the time of the Rehabilitation. He retracted his opinion, and insisted emphatically upon the constraint that Pierre Cauchon put upon the judges. He must have been about seventy at that time.


Pierre Minier, or Le Minier, Minerii, was master of arts, in his fifth year in theological studies in 1403. He is not to be confused with the Carmelite Pierre Meinier, bachelor of theology at Paris in 1432. He must have died in 1432 or 1433. In 1432 we find an approval of the will of Pierre Minier, cure of Boos.

A very diligent witness at the Trial, upon the testimony of Houppeville, his opinion concerning Jeanne was not pleasing to Cauchon, who would not admit him to the editing of the Trial record. His opinion was, however, included.


Raoul Le Sauvage, Silvestris, Dominican, was licentiate in theology in 1429 and master in November, 1431. He appears to have had a great reputation as a preacher at Rouen where he preached many sermons between 1427 and 1447

Jean Marcel, in the Procès de Réhabilitation, refers to him as Jean but in the Trial Record he is named Raoul in every instance (except in the session of April 12) with the title of bachelor of theology and once as master. A Radulphus Silvestris, priest of the diocese of Rouen, was described in 1403 as having been a master of arts for fifteen years, a bachelor of law, and student in theology at the same time as Erard Emengart, Guillaume de Baudribosc, André Marguerie, Jean Garin and Guillaume Desjardins.


Denis Gastinel, licentiate in canon law at Paris in 1418, had studied under another of Jeanne’s judges, Nicolas Le Roux, Abbot of La Croix Saint Leufroy. He was present in 1419 at the oath of allegiance made by the abbot of Jumièges to King Henry VI. He was provided with numerous benefices by the conquering king; he became curé of Troismonts in 1420, canon of Nôtre Dame de la Ronde in 1421, and canon of the cathedral of Rouen in 1422. He was dean of Andely in 1423, curé of Neville by favor of an English knight, Walter Hungerford, in 1427, and was vicar-general during the vacancy of the archiepiscopal see. He took part in the Estates convoked by Bedford at Lisieux in 1436. He died on December 13, 1440, leaving among the executors of his will his friend Jean Caval.

He was a man entirely devoted to the English in the Chapter of Rouen, which he remembered in his will. Bedford recompensed him for his zeal by naming him, in 1424, a member of the royal council, with a salary of a hundred livres a year. His judgment in the matter of the Maid was very vigorous; at the time of the definitive sentence, he displayed the same spirit and screened himself behind the opinion of the Abbot of Fécamp, Gilles de Duremort.


Jean Le Doulx, Weis, is referred to as master of arts in 14T2; he was a canon of Rouen. In a petition of 1427 he is described as a licentiate in both civil and canon law, and rector of the parish church of Saint Martin du Pont of Rouen, and intimate friend of Cardinal de la Rochetaillée Promoter from 1422 on, and judge of Saint Cande le Vieux in 1423. He was named, in 1432, the lawyer pensionné of the Chapter.


Jean Basset, Basseti, was born in 1381 in the diocese of Coutances, was master of arts in 1403, and licentiate in law at Paris in 1418. He early allied himself with the English government. Presented by Henry V with the benefice of Tirepié in the diocese of Avranches in 142o, and canon of the church of Mantes in 142T, he obtained in that year after his oath of allegiance, the restitution of the revenues of his benefice of Gambernon. He was a man of considerable importance at that time, for he was then conservator of the privileges of the University of Paris (he carried the register of examinations to the court of Rome in 141q) and he obtained in 1423 the confirmation of the privileges of that illustrious body from Bedford (in 1420 he had been sent to appeal to the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy on the same mission). On March 8, 1420, Jean Basset obtained a canonical prebend in the church of Rouen; he was ecclesiastical judge during the vacancy of the archbishopric, and then treasurer of the diocese, (1436) precentor of, the cathedral in 1445, vicar-general in 1451, and provided with a great many benefices, among them a canonicate at Avranches in 1429. Jean Basset died at Rouen on March 3, 1454. He had asked to be buried at the entrance of the choir in Nôtre Dame.

Basset’s judgment concerning Jeanne was at the same time prudent and submissive. But he was not, as Quicherat says, imprisoned for it. It was fine of him, however, to have freed from the prison at Rouen, as ecclesiastical judge, clerics who had been imprisoned by the English government for the crime of high treason. A Nicolas Basset is referred to as constable of the castle of Rouen in 1431. 1 do not know what connection he may have had with this Jean Basset.


Jean Brouillot, or Bruillot, Brulloti, was a priest of the diocese of Bayeux, master of arts and licentiate in law in 1403; he is referred to in 1408 as procureur of the University of Paris. In 14io Brouillot was sent, with Pierre Cauchon, in an embassy to the duc de Berry to seek for peace; in May, 1411, to the Duke of Burgundy to get his support of Jean Richard, the abbot of Saint Ouen whom Jean XXIII disappointed. In 1418 Bruillot is described as councilor of Parlement in the Chambre des Enquêtes, and cure of Saint Nicolas de Tailles in the diocese of Rouen. He received the chantry of Rouen in 1422, vacant during the absence of Jean de Noris, who remained loyal to the French. He was sent as a deputy at various times to the Estates of Normandy, was vicar-general of the archbishopric, and was certainly very agreeable to the Duke of Bedford, since he was among those named by the Chapter to explain to the regent the reasons for not sacrificing the interests of the church of Rouen to those of the Carmelites. Bruillot died about the 20th of December, 1435, leaving Nicolas de Venderès for executor of his will. Jean Bruillot‘s opinion concerning Jeanne tallied completely with that of the masters of theology.


Aubert Morel, Morelli, became licentiate in law at Paris in 1428, where he had studied under Guillaume de Conti, another of Jeanne’s judges. He enjoyed, after 1419, various chaplaincies of the cathedral of Rouen, and he was early allied with the English government, since he obtained from Henry V, in 1420, the benefice of Theuville aux Maillots, and, contrary to the pretentions of Richard de Saulx, the vicarship of Pontoise from 1423 to 1425. He was a hard man, and gave it as his opinion that Jeanne should be subjected to torture.


Jean Colombel, Columbelli, a cleric of Lisieux, was bachelor of arts in 1403, Of law in 1415, and figured in 1420 among the licentiates at Paris where he had for teacher another of Jeanne’s judges, Jean Garin, dean of the Faculty of Law.

Promoter of the diocese at Rouen in 1423 and 1424, he denounced those who had seized the revenues of the archbishopric during the vacancy of the See, proclaiming loudly words that wounded various canons; and he was imprisoned for this. Jean Colombel was promoter for the ecclesiastical court of Rouen from 1423 to 1429. He was curé of Valliquierville in 1429 and he exchanged this benefice for that of Saint Vivien of Rouen which was held at that time by Jean Secart, licentiate in law, one of those present at the Trial. Colombel must have died intestate on November 12, 1437. He was then described as canon and scholastic of Lisieux, a title which he obtained, presumably, from Pierre Cauchon.

In his final judgment concerning Jeanne, Jean Colombel decided as did the Abbot of Fécamp, Gilles de Duremort.


Laurent Du Busc, a cleric of Rouen, was bachelor of law in 1403 at Paris, and licentiate in 1420. He is referred to at Rouen as lawyer of the church court in 1423, 1439 and 1440. We find, in 1423 a Pierre Dubust, keeper of the seal of the vicomte de Rouen; a Jean de Busco, student at the Faculty of Theology at Paris in 1432; in 1447 a Guillaume du Busc was executor of high justice of Lisieux. I do not know what relationship, if any, there was among these people.


Raoul Anguy, lawyer of the church court, was master of arts, licentiate in law on March 14, 143o, and was received as canon of Rouen in 1435. He died before July 4, 1442. On May 15, 1433, Raoul Anguy was named by Edmund Beaufort, comte de Mortain, as auditor of his accounts. On October 26, 1436, he is cited as master of arts, having power of purveyor of the offices of the comte de Mortain.


André Marguerie, master of arts in 1403 at Paris, bachelor of law, was vicar-general and counselor of Archbishop Louis d’Harcourt in 1409, and was confirmed as archdeacon of Petit Caux by Henry V in 1421. He returned at that time from the Council of Constance, and affirmed that he had never adhered to the Armagnac party or that of the Dauphin. A member of the council of the King during the English domination, he is cited as counselor of the King in 1422 and received 30 livres “to make a certain trip from Rouen to Vernon, on behalf of the said lord,” (Bedford). He went as a deputy to the Estates of Normandy in 1423, to the provincial council at Rouen in 1445, was holder of the benefice of Drosay, and at the same time was treasurer of the Chapter of Rouen, and undertook the pilgrimage to Jerusalem between 1442 and 1443, and asked, to this end, testimonial letters de vita et moribus. André Marguerie died at Rouen February 12, 1465. His will shows that he was rich and beneficent. André Marguerie‘s conduct at the Trial was prudent and he even at times let himself appear kindly disposed. He testified in a rather vague way at the Rehabilitation.


Jean Alespée, Ad Ensem, born in 1357, the son of Pierre Alespée, was licentiate in civil law, and bachelor of canon law at Paris, and canon of Rouen from 1412. He was treasurer of the diocese under Archbishop Louis d’Harcourt (1412-1413), vicar-general of that prelate, with his intimate friend Nicolas de Venderès (1415-1422), and was allied with the English party. By letter of nomination of Henry V he was concurrently canon of Evreux, Bayeux, of the collegiate church of Andely, and curé of Hautot le Vatois. He died at Rouen, at the home of Jean Marcel, on August 16, 1434, in his seventy-seventh year, after having been ill for some time at the home of Pierre Miget, prior of Longueville. Jean Alespée was a rich man and a lover of fine books. His confrères put him in charge, in 1424, Of supervising the construction of the library of the cathedral. Jean Alespée was related to the Estouteville and Mallet de Graville families. He was also a friend of Nicolas de Venderès who made an inventory of his possessions.

Jean Alespée, appears especially to have been a timid man; he always took refuge behind the opinions of his teachers and lords, the theologians. Jean Riquier, witness at the Rehabilitation, reported that Alespée wept freely at the burning of Jeanne and that he said publicly: “I wish that my soul were where I believe the soul of this girt is.”


Geoffroy Du Crotay is not to be found among the members of the University of Paris. He is first to be met at the reinstatement of a prisoner taken from the prisons of the cathedral of Rouen. He is cited as lawyer pensionné of the Chapter in 1435, and he was still living in 1462.

Geoffroy du Crotay and his colleague, Le Doulx, gave it as their opinion in the session of March 27, 1431, that Jeanne ought to have at least three days’ delay before being excommunicated, but when they deliberated with the other lawyers of the court on her assertions, they fell back upon the judgment of the Parisian theologians.


Gilles Deschamps, licentiate in civil law, came from an old and rich family of Rouen. His uncle was Gilles Deschamps, doctor of theology, Bishop of Coutances and Cardinal, who died on March 15, 1413, a personage highly praised for his “very eminent knowledge,” and who is cited as almoner of Charles VI in the Chronique du Religieux de Saint Denys.

The younger Gilles was born at Rouen, and had studied at Paris in 1414; he was very young when provided with a benefice as canon of Coutances, certainly thanks to the patronage of his uncle, bishop of that city. Almoner of King Charles VI in 1415, he exchanged the benefice of the chapel of Saint Thomas of the Louvre for the chancellery of the church of Rouen where he was received in 1420. The same year he exchanged the benefice of Pirou in the diocese of Coutances for a canonicate in the cathedral of Rouen. He was in turn chancellor of Nôtre Dame of Rouen, treasurer of the archbishopric, vicar-general, and deputy to the royal council of the states, which was held at Paris. He was named dean in 1435 and in 1437 we see him with Guillaume Erart, Nicolas de Venderès and André Marguerie entrusted by the Fathers of the Council to publish the indulgences accorded on the occasion of the reunion of the Greeks with the Catholic Church. Gilles Deschamps was prosecuted in matters of faith, in 1438, on the complaint of the promoter; he died in prison before the end of his trial.

We do not know the motive for this prosecution, which was vigorous; his brothers, Robert and Jean Deschamps, requested the Archbishop of Rouen for permission to bury him in holy ground and the permission was granted. He had for judges Pasquier de Vaux, Bishop of Meaux, with whom he had lively quarrels at the time of his promotion to dean, in 1435, and Brother Martin Lavenu. In the long decision which he wrote concerning Jeanne, Gilles Deschamps insisted especially upon the fact of her insubmission; for the rest, he entrenched himself in the opinions of the faculties of Law and Theology. Deschamps was very fond of the Chapter of Nôtre Dame of Rouen, and he presented the boys of the choir, whom he directed for many years, with caps of vermilion wool, “to escape the coldness of winter.” In 1423 he directed the classifying of the archives of the Chapter, and on November 2, 1438, although he had been accused in matters of faith, the Chapter authorized his burial in the chapel of Nôtre Dame.


John Grey (?) most often written Jean Gris. Is this the same person as “John Grey, Knight, capitaine of Yomins” that one finds in 1435 in the retinue of the Duke of Bedford? or Sir John Gray? A Jehan Grey is remitted his possessions by the King of England in 1419, October 3 (Bibl. Nat. ms. fr. 26043); one finds a Jean de Grey, captain of Argentan for King Henry in 1420 (Bibl. Nat. ms. fr. 26043)

A Jean Gray, Knight, captain of Exmes (1430?) gave a receipt for wages to P. Baille, receiver-general of Normandy.


John Berwoit, or Barow, was Jeanne’s guard. Perhaps this is the same person referred to later on in the definitive edition as Johannes Baroust, commissioned with John Grey to guard Jeanne’s cell (session of March 13). William Talbot was also one of her guards.


Jean Pinchon was licentiate in canon law at Paris before 1414, archdeacon of Josas in 1418, and at Melun; he took possession in 142, of a canonicate at Rouen that he had obtained about 144; on this occasion he made his submission to Henry V. We note that he took the title of scribe and abréviateur of apostolic letters. On November 9, 1422, he challenged letters of appeal to the Pontiff concerning a dispute in which he felt himself to be wronged, and he fought for the nomination of Jean de la Rochetaillée as Archbishop of Rouen; when a majority was obtained by Nicolas de Venderès, he demanded the nomination of new officers for the archbishopric during the vacancy of the See, those who had been named seeming suspect to him. He was a deputy to the Council in 1424, and was named, December 3, 1429, vicar-general during the vacancy of the See. This battling cleric, who had to reconcile himself with his confrère, Jean de Besançon, against whom he had spoken injuriously, enjoyed the full confidence of the English. Bedford entrusted him with presenting to the Chapter the charter by which the English duke made himself the second founder of the Carmelites at Rouen (January 9, 1431). Jean Pinchon coveted also the canonicates of Tournai and Evreux; he must have died at Paris before June 25, 1438. He was an assiduous judge at the Trial, and judged in accordance with the theologians of Paris and referred himself to the authority of Guillaume Le Boucher.


Jean Moret, Benedictine, was a licentiate in both laws, and prior of the small abbey of Préaux in the diocese of Lisieux, and abbot from November 27, 1420. Early identified with the English cause, Jean Moret made oath and a census of his possessions to King Henry V in 1420. Halle, captain of “brigands,” directed an expedition against the abbey of Préaux in 1426. Jean Moret was dead by September 11, 1432.


Guillaume Desjardins or Desgardins, de Gardinis, or Jardinis, doctor of medicine, was born about 1370 at Caudebec in Caux. He appears in 1403 as priest of the diocese of Rouen, master of arts, and student in medicine. In 1408 he had first ranking as licentiate in medicine, and the following month was numbered among the master regents of that faculty. From November, 1412, to November, 1413, Desjardins did not teach at Paris, but he took up his courses again at the reopening of the school year in 1414. On December 6, 1418, the Faculty considered him as a regent, although he was ill in Rouen, which was then besieged, and had not been able to return to his post. Desjardins was never to return to Paris. He was personat of Mireville in 1415, and was provided by authority of Henry V with the benefice as curé of Saint Laurent de Bacquepits in the diocese of Evreux, which he exchanged for the benefice of Saint Pierre de Neufmarche. He was undoubtedly allied from that time with the English party, for he was named, in succession, to two canonicates in 1421, one at Bayeaux, and the other in the church at Rouen where his brother, Robert Desjardins, died in the early part of August, 1438.

He was a rich man, having at Sahurs a rather important fief, and possessing beautiful books. Guillaume Desjardins practiced medicine at Rouen and passed for a liberal. He protected at Paris the students of his Nation, contributing towards the acquisition of a building in which they could pursue their studies. He was at Rouen one of the benefactors of the Hôtel Dieu de la Madeleine.

We know that he visited Jeanne in prison, on the orders of the Earl of Warwick, when the English were afraid she would die a natural death. Guillaume Desjardins found that she had a fever; with his colleague and confrère, Guillaume de la Chambre, he prescribed that she be bled. His opinion at the Trial followed that of the Abbot of Fécamp, Gilles de Duremort.


Robert Morellet, Moreleti, Morelli, was a master of arts at Paris. In a petition of 1442 he is described as canon and chancellor of the church at Rouen. We learn from a decree in council of Henry VI that the archbishop was allowed to proceed against him through his deputy judge. He was at that time said to be the contractor of the prebend of Saint Éloi, and that to the great scandal of his parishioners he had thrown to the ground a tablet on which the treasurers of the parish had exposed wax candles for sale. We find later that on November 14, 1441, he was tried in matters of faith for having blasphemed the name of God. But Jean Le Maistre, vicar-general of the Inquisitor, intervened on his behalf and he was reëstablished in reputation. On October 31, 1442, the formula of excommunication which attainted him was affixed to the cathedral door “with an epitaph in great letters.” A Robert Morelet, priest, is mentioned as patron of the church of Canouville.


Jean Le Roy, Regis, was a master of arts at Paris in 1403, a student in his fourth year under the Faculty of Law in 1416, and priest in the diocese of Meaux. An account of “Johannes Regis,” canon of the church of Rouen, called also master of wills, was made for 1433-1434, and 1434-1435. A Jean Le Roy, canon, promoter of Rouen, curé of Londinières and later of Bourdainville, 1429-1430, is described as promoter during the vacancy of the See on December 13, 1429. He died January 25, 1460.


Erard Emengart, originally from the diocese of Rouen, was master of arts and bachelor of theology in 1403; licentiate in 1410, he figured for many years among the regents of the Faculty of Theology. In February, 1414, he was among the doctors who demanded that the affair of Jean Petit be referred to the Pope. In September, 1431, he was still teaching at Paris.


John Carpenter, Carpentarii, a clerk of the King, is described as a master of theology. In 1429 he was rector of the parish church of Beaconsfield in the diocese of Lincoln; in 1435 he was the guardian of Saint Anthony’s hospital in London.


Denis de Sabrevois, sometimes written Sabrevays and Sabreuvras, studied at Paris. He received his bachelor’s degree in theology in 1422, at the same time as Guillaume Adelie. He was a licentiate in theology in 1426 and Jean Le Fèvre and Jean Gravestain were classmates. He is referred to as master, on March 30, 1430, and he taught theology with Jean Beaupère, Erard Emengart, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, and Guillaume Adelie. On December 23, 1451, at Bâle, Denis de Sabrevois was entrusted with receiving the papal nuncio. In October, 1437, the Faculty named him their ambassador to the Council and charged him to obtain from the Council a ruling that no one could obtain the office of chancellor of Nôtre Dame unless he were master of theology. In 1438, when arrested near Bâle upon orders of Eugene IV, Denis de Sabrevois was freed thanks to the intervention of Albert, Duke of Austria, the son-in-law of Emperor Sigismund. That same year he wrote to the Fathers of the Council that King Charles VII would fight to the death for the defence of the authority of the Council – which was certainly an exaggeration. With Thomas de Courcelles, Denis de Sabrevois remained at Bâle, in spite of the plague. He was there again in November, 1439. The following year in the general assembly of the University, he played an important rôle; and the French government, represented by the chancellor and provost, had to resign itself to seeing the University take the part of Felix V. In 1444, Denis de Sabrevois argued again in favor of the Council. He figured among the master regents of the University of the year 1452, and he is described as dean of the Faculty from 1456 to 1472.


Guillaume de Baudribosc, originally of Rouen, was master of arts and bachelor of theology in 1403, and canon of the cathedral of Rouen in 1431. He was keeper of the seal of the church court in 1422, and was in charge of the archives of the Chapter. He was pénitencier of the Chapter in 1424, and took the inventory of goods of the church houses, with the chancellor, Gilles Deschamps, in 1425. He was exempted by his confrères from coming to church, in 1439, because of his age and infirmities. He died about the fifteenth of January, 1447, in his house in the rue aux Oues. We may assume that Baudribosc was educated, for he willed three books to the library of the cathedral; he was eloquent, for he was appointed by the Chapter to felicitate the Duke of Bedford upon the occasion of his joyous entry into Rouen in 1424, and to ask justice from him-in very generous terms. But he was certainly very strongly attached to the English party. His niece, who was his heiress, was married to an Englishman.

Guillaume de Baudribosc, a very diligent judge at the Trial, hid behind the authority of the Abbot of Fécamp, when he had to make his decision.


Nicolas Lemire, Medici, is referred to in the Trial Record both as bachelor of theology, and as master.

Denifle and Chatelain have proposed the correction from Nicolaus to Petrus. We find at the University of Paris a Petrus Medici, cleric of Evreux, master of arts in 1403, licentiate in theology in 1428, master in the same year. This priest of the diocese of Evreux was desirous of obtaining a vicariate, in 1425, in the Evreux church. But it is wise to be prudent in such corrections, and we must admit that Thomas de Courcelles must have known his colleagues rather well.


Richard Le Gagneux, Lucratoris, originally of Coutances, is referred to in the Trial Record as bachelor of theology. He is only to be found as master of arts and bachelor of law at Paris, and licentiate in canon law on December 3, 1436.


Jean Duval, de Valle, priest of the diocese of Rouen, was a master of arts at Paris in 1403. Later he was a student of theology under the Abbot of Fécamp; he asked for a canonicate at Meaux in 1422, and in 1425 at the church of Estrain in the diocese of Rouen. In 1439 he is referred to as a master of theology and took part in the election of the antipope at Bâle.


Guillaume Le Mesle, Benedictine, taught canon law at Paris in 1418, He was abbot of Saint Catherine at Rouen, and in 1428 was abbot of Saint Ouen. He took the oath of loyalty at the church of Rouen in November of that year. A Guillaume Le Mesle, in 1434, is described as special lieutenant of the Bailly of Evreux.


Jean Labbé, Benedictine, was abbot of Saint Georges de Boscherville from November 11, 1417, according to Gallia Christina, volume XI. His temporal possessions having been seized by the English, he sought for restitution at the court of Rome. He abdicated in 1444 without having obtained justice. He died the following year and was interred in the Chapel of the Virgin.


Guillaume Le Bourg, canon régulier, was prior of Saint Lô at Rouen after the death of Guillaume Le Couette (1411). In 1442 the judge of the ecclesiastical court of Rouen made him an apology for having, in the suit over the abbey of Saint Ouen, brought in a secular judge. He died in February, 1456. Pierre Cauchon, delegated by Martin V to preside over the raising of the tithes accorded to Henry VI, had recourse to this prelate as a commissioner.


The prior of Sigy (Sagy, it is written in the Trial Record), near Neufchatel, was, according to Quicherat, Friar Pierre de la Crique, a Benedictine who was a licentiate in law at Paris in 1424. If Sagy is the monastery in question, the prior was probably Georges Martel, who is to be encountered in a trial of 1432.


Jean Duchemin or Du Quemin, de Quemenio, was a licentiate in law at Paris in March, 1428. He studied under Thomas Fiesvet, one of Jeanne’s judges, and was a friend of Jean Jolivet. He was a lawyer at the court of Rouen, and in 1432 figures as lawyer in the church court at Rouen at a trial. Jean Duchemin was designated by the Chapter to assist at the election of an archbishop in 1436. We find, in 1428, a Jacques Duchemin commissioned by the vicomte du Pont de Larche to examine Pierre Le Bigordoys, “traitor, thief and enemy of the King.”


Richard Des Saulx, de Salicibus, is described in a list of 1403 as a priest of Rouen, master of arts and bachelor of law. In 1414 he is described at Rouen as jurisperitus, advocatus curie officialis. In 1423 the canons sentenced him to do penance for a filthy word spoken while he was pleading against Canon Jean de La Porte. We note that in 1435 he was dismissed by decision of the church court of Rouen from his pretensions to the benefice of Theuville aux Maillots, which Henry VI had given to Aubert Morel in 1419,


Nicolas or Nicole Maulin was a licentiate in law and is said to be canon of Nôtre Dame de la Ronde at Rouen in 1432. He was chaplain of the chapel of Saint Honoré in the Église des Filles Dieu in 1438. Parisian documents tell us nothing concerning him.


Pierre Carel, sometimes written Carré, Carelli, is styled in a petition as “master of arts from Paris, cleric of Lisieux.” He is referred to in 1432 in a deed of the Saint Cande le Vieux at Rouen. A person named Pierre Quarré, a lawyer in the church court, is mentioned in a trial of 1432. A Guillaume Carrel was a canon of Rouen.


Bureau de Cormeilles, Burellus de Cormeliis, licentiate in civil law, seems very likely to have been the scholar of the University of Orléans who is described in 1394 as “Burellus de Cormeilles, clericus Rothomagensis, licenciatus in legibus, Franciae regine secretarius,” and who coveted a canonicate in the church of Avranches. Between 1404 and 1420 Bureau held the benefice of Touffreville La Corbeline. In 1426 he gave a receipt to the vicomte de Rouen for 20 s.t. for rent owed to the church of Saint Michel.


Nicolas de Foville, de Fovilla, must have been the one who is referred to as master of arts in 1435- We find a Nicolas de Foville, cure of Ecrainville, being tried before the church court of Rouen in 1451 in a dispute about the tithes of his parish.


Giovanni da Fano (not de Favo) was an Italian of La Marche, a Friar Minor, described inexactly as master of theology. In 1428-29 this personage was only sententiarius and did not become a licentiate until 1433. He was regent that same year; one finds him in the same office in Paris in September, 1435.

JEAN LE VAUTIER Jean, (not Nicolas) Le Vautier was a bachelor of theology and hermit of Saint Augustine, and a sententiarius at Paris in 1431.


Nicolas Caval, born about 1390, was master of arts and bachelor of law in 1403, and licentiate in 1428. He obtained from Henry V on January 16, 1421, a canonicate in the church at Mortain; he was received the following year as canon of the cathedral of Rouen in the place of Robert de Faubusson, who had remained faithful to France. He was living in Rouen before this date, and was a deputy to the Estates at Paris in 1424- In 1428 he was described as Dean of Nôtre Dame of Andely. He was named keeper of the seal of the church court in 1443, was curé of Critot and chaplain of the chapel of Nôtre Dame aux Béguines at Rouen. Nicolas Caval died a few days before August 27,1457

He was, it would seem, a learned man, and a lover of books. He was devoted to Pierre Cauchon, and was the executor of his will. It was he who settled the expenses for the procession that followed the body of Pierre Cauchon from the church of Saint Cande to the Seine, in prayer, and he accompanied until the end the body of his friend. He was also a friend of Zano de Castiglione, the bishop of Lisieux who was so harsh in his judgment of Jeanne. Caval’s opinion was in accordance with that of the theologians and the authority of the Abbot of Fécamp, Gilles de Duremort. When called to the Rehabilitation proceedings, in 1452, Nicolas Caval pretended, which was not true, that he had only heard Jeanne a single time. He was a lamentable witness, who remembered nothing, saying for example “that he certainly believed that the English didn’t bear any love towards Jeanne,” that he “knew very well that she had been burnt, but whether it was justly or unjustly he would have to refer to the law and the trial.”


Philippe Le Maréchal or Marechal, Marescalli, was a licentiate in canon law at Paris in 1424. In 1420, as procureur of the French “nation” at the University, with JEAN Basset, procureur of the University, he was sent in an embassy to the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy for the conservation of the privileges of the University. The ambassadors also recommended Pierre Cauchon to their attention.


Pierre Cave is described as licentiate in civil law. This name is not to be found in the documents of the University of Paris. But there was a family of this name possessing a house in Rouen.


John, Duke of Bedford (1389-1435), third son of Henry TV, was regent of the kingdom on the death of Henry V. He married Anne, sister of Philippe of Burgundy. The best artisan in the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, this great politician, firm and patient at the same time, worked in France to repair the evils of the war and to repress also and prevent all awakening of the national spirit. Bedford came to understandings with the local nobility, in the Beauvais section, for example, through families attached to the Burgundian party. But he did not count for enough among the French people, the poor people of the countryside. It is not due to Bedford that France did not become English. He displayed an extraordinary activity in equipping the defenses of Paris in July, 1429; he turned from their destination the English troops that had been levied to send against the Hussites, denounced Charles VII for making use of a “woman of dissolute life in order to abuse his people.” After Jeanne’s fruitless assault on Paris, Bedford appeared before Saint Denis to punish its inhabitants. His military and diplomatic initiative was certainly the cause of Jeanne’s destruction. He was able to attach the Duke of Burgundy to his cause, — the Duke was then tacking about in a system of truces-by ceding to him the investiture of Champagne and in offering him a sort of regency over France. For his own part, he devoted himself to affairs in Normandy and made of Rouen an English citadel and the seat of the English government. It was Bedford’s English council that designated Cauchon to claim the Maid as a sorceress, and furnished him the 10,000 livres for her purchase. Although Bedford appeared but once at her trial and then in a singular guise for a noble duke, and although he seemed to have given his hand to Cardinal Beaufort, that violent and orthodox prelate, it is not at all doubtful that Bedford conducted the whole business personally. His spirit is everywhere manifest in it. Percival de Cagny affirms this.

For it is evident that Bedford held the Chapter of Rouen in the hollow of his hand, and Jeanne found there enemies rather than judges. On April 5, 1430, they discussed in chapter meeting the two gold pieces offered by the Duke of Bedford and his wife Anne of Burgundy, at the mass celebrated in the choir of the cathedral. On the 25th he announced to the Chapter the good news that Henry VI had disembarked at Calais. On October 20 the Duke put on canonical dress and was admitted to the distribution of bread and wine. On January 13, 1431, processions were held in the church for the prosperity of the Duke and the Duchess. Bedford was buried in the choir of the cathedral, not far from the body of King Henry, among his brothers. We know that Bedford also favored the Carmelites of Rouen very greatly.


Nicolas Lami, Amici, was cursor in theology in 1422, bachelor in 1423, licentiate at Paris in 1428, rector in 1426 and 1429. By virtue of letters royal from Henry, he took possession of the canonicate of Jean Chuffard at Beauvais in Cauchon’s time. He was present only one day at the Trial and departed immediately for the Council of Bâle where he arrived about the ninth or twelfth of April, 1431. Nicolas Lami played an important part in the Council. On October 18, 1431, he wrote to Chancellor Rolin, to have him intervene in the matter of the Burgundian captains who were operating between Belfort and Altkirsch, threatening the security of the environs of Bâle. On March 18, 1432, at Paris, he delivered before Parlement a chronicle of events of the Council and protested with utmost violence against its dissolution “to the great shame and infamy of the Pope.” We find Nicolas Lami in charge of missions for the Council at Cologne, in France and in England.

On March 10, 1436, the Council decided to confer upon him a canonicate at Tournai. On November 10, 1439, he was summoned to Bourges by Charles VII at the time of his consultation with the clergy of France. We find him again, in 1447, at the conference at Lyons, which was to settle the question of the abdication of Felix V.

We know that at Bâle Nicolas Lami met the celebrated Alsatian doctor, Jean Nider, prior of the Dominicans and author of the Formicmium, which he had written to direct the religious of his order in research in heresy. This “very zealous discoverer of witches” to use Trithème’s phrase, received from Lami his information on Jeanne d’Arc and on the two women who said they came from God who were condemned at Paris.

In the words of Nicolas Lami, Jeanne “had avowed familiarity with an angel of God, who, in the opinion of a great number of very lettered persons, was only an evil spirit, and likewise this was the result of many proofs and conjecture.”


Guillaume Evrard, Evrandi, Eurardi, Eurart, Euerard, whom we must not confuse with Erart, received first rank for the license in theology on December 31, 1429, and does not appear as master until March A, 1437. From March 24 to June 23, 1430, he was rector of the University. We find him as “teacher of the nephew of Monsignor,” the archbishop of Rouen. The Chapter gave him 10 livres when he won over the grammarians of Navarre. Guillaume Evrard is referred to as master of the arts students and he accompanied the archbishop’s nephew and books to Rouen. In 1434, he is to be found as curé of the church of Saint Pierre des Arcis in la Cité, and in 1441 he attempted to become curé of Saint Gervais de Paris. From 1440 he was principal of the Collège of Navarre, the old house of learning that had been pillaged by the Burgundians in 1418, and which inspired the great university reform. He became canon of Nôtre Dame on April 12, 1458, and he continued his teaching by virtue of a decree of Bâle and of the Pragmatic. He died on November 6, 1470.

Gérard Machet, confessor of Charles VII and an examiner of Jeanne at Poitiers, presents him in his correspondence as a man “of a very illustrious virtue and a wisdom almost celestial.” He declared to him the pleasure he had had in receiving him at Castres and denied having heard calumnies concerning him. His rôle in the Trial is limited to his having been present at the session of March 3, when he did not say a word. Guillaume Evrard left shortly afterward, with other University masters, for the Council of Bâle, where he arrived between the ninth and twelfth of April.


Gilles Canivet, Aegidius Caniveti, or Quenivet, was a member of the Picard “Nation” at the University, and became a licentiate in medicine on March 20, 142-2. He was a teacher on the faculty from November 9, 1423. On May 20, 1437 he is described as master of arts and medicine. By apostolic favor Gilles Canivet was received as canon of Nôtre Dame de Paris in the place of Jean Hubert.


Roland L’Escrivain, Scriptoris, received his license in medicine in March, 1424, and figures among the master regents of the faculty beginning in December of that year. He was dean from November, 1427, to November, 1430.

He is mentioned, for the last time, as master regent in November, 1443.


Guillaume de la Chambre the younger, de Camera, was born about 1403, and became licentiate in medicine on March 6, 1430, and immediately became a teacher on the faculty. He was still a regent in November, 1452.

He was the son of Guillaume, physician to the Queen, and sold, in 1430, to the Norman “Nation” a house that he owned in the rue Galande in common with his brother Jean, Esquire.

An assiduous judge at the Trial, Guillaume de la Chambre visited Jeanne as physician and he was present at her execution. He testified at the time of the Rehabilitation that his decision was torn from him by the Bishop of Beauvais. His testimony, entirely favorable to the Maid, is that of a clear-sighted and intelligent mind.


Catherine de la Rochelle, was a “woman of devotion” as she is called in a receipt from the city of Tours. We know that on July 4, 1431, at the procession of St. Martin, Jean Graverent, the Inquisitor, delivered a violent discourse against Jeanne. He recalled also that Brother Richard had had in his train four women, three of whom had been taken, namely, the Maid, Pierrone the Breton woman, and her companion, and Catherine de la Rochelle “who said, that when the sacrament of Our Lord’s body was celebrated, that she saw marvels of the high secrets of Our Lord God.” We find that, on September 10, 1430, the city of Tours paid the Augustinian Jean Bourget who had been at Sens, in the month of August, on business with the King and the council, to carry letters to defend itself from the calumnies that this said Catherine had spread about the city and its inhabitants. Catherine appeared at Paris before the church court and she declared that “Jeanne would have left her prison by the aid of the Devil if she had not been well guarded.”


Jean Secard (not Fecard), Secardi, a lawyer, became licentiate in law before 1416. He was curé of Saint Vivien from 1411 on, while he was only a scholar and sub-deacon at Paris, we find that he was employed in the “agreement” the city of Rouen made with Henry V. In 1421 he is mentioned as a master of arts at Paris and canon of Rouen, a nomination obtained solely at the court of Rome; also the Chapter forbade him to wear the habit of the Church. We find that in 1421 Jean Secard figured along with Robert Le Barbier as one of the members of the Norman clergy that assembled in the archbishop’s chapel who declared their confrères who lived in territories submissive to the Dauphin to be deprived of their benefices. He was, therefore, a person very devoted to the English. He exchanged, about 1429, the benefice of Saint Vivien for that of Valliquierville, which he possessed until his death in November, 1449


Thomas Fiesvet or Fievé, described as of Penenche, was a cleric of the diocese of Cambrai, master of arts and bachelor of law in 1403. He was a doctor of law in 1426, master regent in the same year, became rector of the University on March 24, 1427, and ecclesiastical judge of Nôtre Dame at Paris in 1429. He was present only one day at the Trial (March 12), having been nominated, with Guillaume Evrard, and others, to represent the University at Bâle, where he arrived between the ninth and twenty-first of April, 1431



Pasquier de Vaux, Pasquerius de Vallibus, originally from the environs of Evreux, was received as a canon at Nôtre Dame by letters of the King of England on February 3, 1426. He was, much later (December 7, 1425), procureur of the Chapter of Nôtre Dame for its lands of Tourny near Rouen. A licentiate in law in 1426, under Guillaume de Conti, another of the Maid’s judges, then getting his doctorate at the same time as Thomas Fiesvet, he became a master regent of that faculty in 1427. In 1433 Pasquier de Vaux went to Caen to protest against the creation of that University. He was received as a canon at Rouen, was Bedford’s secretary and chaplain, and was commissioned by Henry VI to go to Rome to obtain the promotion of Louis de Luxembourg to the archbishopric.

Pasquier represented him at the time of his reception at Rouen, a ceremony of a character more political than religious, at which Pierre Cauchon and the Abbots of Fécamp and Mont Saint Michel were present. On September 23, 1435, Pasquier de Vaux was called to the See of Meaux as bishop, and in 1439 we find him as Bishop of Evreux, where he had been transferred by Eugene IV, the French having just captured Meaux. When the French entered Evreux he had himself made Bishop of Lisieux, vacant then (1443) by the death of Pierre Cauchon. He was in effect so determined a partisan of the English that after the capture of Evreux by Robert Floques in 1441, be did not want to recognize Charles VII as lord and master. Eugene IV, who had already been of service to him, allowed him to exchange it for Lisieux, the choicest English see, with Coutances. But Charles VII then lost patience and took possession of all his property. At Lisieux we find Pasquier de Vaux taking the title of councilor to the King of England and president of the Chamber of Accounts. On July 20, 1443, the Parlement of Paris put his confiscated possessions up for sale. He was present at the installation of Raoul Roussel as Archbishop of Rouen. Pasquier de Vaux died on July 11, 1447, at the very moment of the entry of Charles VII into the city of Lisieux.

This rich and important man, strongly attached to the English government, lived at Rouen in a mansion near the Mint. He was vicar-general in spiritualibus et in temporalibus of Cardinal Louis de Luxembourg, as well as Henry’s councilor, and played a considerable rôle in


Normandy during the English domination. Very diligent in attending the Trial, Pasquier de Vaux declared himself especially in agreement with the deliberations of the University of Paris.


Nicolas de Hubent, de Henbento or Hubanto, was apostolic secretary. Described as scriptor et abreviator litterarum apostolicarum, he was given by grace of apostolic expectations a prebend and vacant canonicate at Nôtre Dame in Paris on the death of Jean Gerson, September 12, 1429. As all Gerson’s charges were distributed among those notably Anglo-Burgundian in sympathy, we can be sure of the sentiments of this individual. On July 3, 1430, Nicolas de Hubent received in addition the office of sub-precentor and the prebend of the late R. Liejart.


Nicolas Taquel, or better, Nicole Taquet, a recorder of the Trial, was a notary of the church court at Rouen, and curé of Bacqueville le Martel. In 1432 he is cited as notary in the ecclesiastical court of Mesnil-Durescu. In 1436 he was provost of the brotherhood of notaries. We have his signature on a letter of the ecclesiastical judge in 1438. 1431 he is described as dean of the spiritual court, and he had published the adjudication of reparations of Saint Martin de I’Oisel. He was dean of la Chrétienté in 1445.


Jules Quicherat identifies Jean Manchon, who figured but once in the Trial (Wednesday, March 14), as a canon of the collegiate church of Mantes (Rymer, x, p. 41). This does not appear to be the same person as Jean Manchon, originally of the diocese of Bayeaux, who was a licentiate in theology in 1397, master regent of Paris in 1403, and confessor of the King in 1413, whom one encounters with Pierre Cauchon among the University men who worked in the Cabochien reform. As canon of Chartres we find him that same year at the Council of Paris among the masters who deliberated on the urgency for stamping out heresy in the kingdom of France. In 1414 they neglected to ask him his opinion on the condemnation of Jean Petit (it had been favorable). In 1420 this Jean Manchon was sent to Troyes as ambassador of the University with Pierre Cauchon and Jean Beaupère The University recommended him to the Pope, and then to the dean and chapter of


Bayeaux to have him made bishop. There seems to have been an error in the transcription.


Franquet d’Arras, was a captain of guerrillas, “valiant man-at-arms of the Duke of Burgundy‘s party” who had adventured into the marches of his enemies, towards Laigni on the Marne with three hundred warriors. They were defeated by the Maid and her company in May, 1430, and put to the sword.


Jean Tiphaine won second place among twelve candidates for the licentiate in medicine on February 27, 1418, and became a member of the Faculty of Medicine in November. He was chaplain of Saint Aignan in the château of Caen, canon of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris, and was received as canon of the cathedral of Rouen in 1432- Jean Tiphaine never resided in Rouen, but at Paris, where he filled the commissions of his colleagues. His death was announced to the Chapter in February, 1469.

Tiphaine testified at Paris for the Rehabilitation and denied having formulated the sentence which, however, we possess. He had attended her in prison, and his memory was in other ways faithful, for he described with exactness Jeanne’s prison in the tower of Rouen castle and reported the Maid’s words.


William Pole, Earl of Suffolk, born in 1396, entered the campaigns of Henry V as a very young man. He was employed in 1417-1418 in the recovery of Cotentin; he was made admiral of Normandy in the following year, then captain of Pontorson, Mantes and Avranches. In 1420 Pole took part in the siege of Melun. He was made prisoner at Baugé April 3, 1421, and received the order of the Garter on May 3. He was governor of Cotentin in 1422, waged a campaign in Champagne the following year, was commissioned captain-general of Vendômois, Chartrain, Beauce and Gâtinais, and was captain-general of Saint Lô in September, 1428. When the Maid appeared at Orléans, Pole was serving under Salisbury, and when this latter was decapitated by a cannon ball, Pole replaced him as commander of the English troops in France


(November 13, 1428). He was not lucky. He had to give up the siege of Orleans, and was taken prisoner by the French at Jargeau, May, 1429: a fatal day for his family, for his brother John Pole was likewise taken prisoner and Alexander, another brother, was killed. To obtain his release, William had to pay 20,000 livres and leave his brother Thomas as hostage. John Pole was released generously on parole by the Bastard of Orléans. William Pole was captain of Avranches in 1432, and in 1436 was named captain of Tombelaine for two years. On November 10, 1436, he is cited as captain of Renneville.

Pole was a cultivated man and good who wrote verse in French for his own pleasure. He proved himself especially as a friend to Duke Charles of Orleans in his captivity, worked hard for Anglo-French peace, and was obliging to Jean d’Angoulême. Suffolk conducted the English embassy which came to France in 1444 to seek the bride of Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou. We know that he was murdered in 1450, suspected of treason. He was in reality a victim of his pacific sentiments and his French sympathies.


John Talbot, first Earl of Shewsbury (1388?-1453), was considered one of the most audacious of the English generals of his time. He went to France about 1419, was present at the sieges of Melun and Meaux. He fought at Verneuil, and was made a Knight of the Garter in 1424In 1425 he became the King’s lieutenant in Ireland. In March, 1427, Talbot accompanied Bedford to France. He was made captain of Pontorson, and we find him at the siege of Montargis which was raised by La Hire and Dunois. In March, 1428, John Talbot took Laval. He recovered Le Mans for the English. In December Bedford made him governor of Anjou and Maine and captain of release. At the siege of Orléans. he occupied the bastille of Saint Loup. After the siege was raised, Talbot drew back to Meting; then to Beaugency. He was captured at Patay by the archers of Poton de Saintrailles and did not regain his liberty until 1433, Captain and governor of Rouen, he is to be found, in 1441, the King’s lieutenant of lands between the Seine and the Somme; Marshal in France, and lieutenant of Aquitaine after the loss of Normandy, he perished heroically at Castillon in 1453. This model of chivalry and honor, Talbot, “watchdog of England,” is portrayed in a miniature in the Shrewsbury Book.



Thomas, Lord Scales, was born about 1399. In 1422 Thomas crossed to Normandy with a company of men-at-arms and served under John, Duke of Bedford. In 1423 he was captain of Verneuil with a salary of 2,461 livres. In 1424-1425 Thomas campaigned with Fastolf in Maine and was made Knight of the Garter. In 1427 he took part in the siege of Pontorson. He was captain of Saint Jacques de Beuvron and was defeated on April 17, 1427, at Bas-Courtils, between Pontorson and Avranches. He is still cited as captain of Pontorson. On December 16, 1428, we find him as lieutenant of the King in Orléanais and he received 3,000 livres to lead an army against Orleans. Jeanne, in her letter of March 22, 1429, designates him as one of Bedford’s lieutenants.

He was taken prisoner and put at ransom while he was trying to aid Orléans, and was again defeated at Beaugency and taken prisoner at Patay (June 18, 1429). He was a captain with men-at-arms at Louviers (order of September 28, 1430). In 1431 we see him among the English chiefs sent by Bedford to Jean V, Duke of Brittany, to fight the duc d’Alençon. He was captain of Domfort in 1433 and was named guard and captain of Saint Lô in 1435. He is described as seneschal of Normandy before 1436, and was in that year captain of Rouen. On August 14, 1437, as seneschal of Normandy he had under his orders 260 men-at-arms and 780 archers. On September 26, 1441, we find a payment to Thomas, Lord of Scales, the wages of the garrison of Granville. Numerous delays were granted to him to pay homage for the lands that he held by royal grant. He devoted all his life to the war in France and to the dynasty of Lancaster for which he died in 1460.


Guillaume Mouton, Guillelmus Mutonis, a person unknown to us, was present at the supplementary questioning of March 31st. He is named along with John Grey, not among the theologians. A Guillaume Mouton is referred to as cure of Butot in 1432. He figured as a witness in a trial before the church court where Pierre Caere, Jean Duchemin and Nicolas Taquel are likewise mentioned.


The Abbot of Mortemer has been identified as Guillaume Theroude, who took part in the Council of Constance and undertook various


missions for Jean, Duke of Burgundy, and was recommended to Henry V by Philip the Good in 1421 as a “bon preudomme, solempnel maistre en theologie.” We encounter him at Rouen in 1423 where he celebrated mass at Saint Cande le Vieux; in 1424 he went to Vernon to seek out Bedford on the behalf of Cardinal de la RochetaiIIé.

According to Denifle and Chatelain, however, the Abbot of Mortemer concerned in the Trial was Nicolas, a monk of Rosières near Salins, de Roseriis, otherwise called Haumont, of the Cistercian order. He was bachelor of theology in 1426 at the same time as Guillaume Evrard and Jean du Quesnay, and prepared for his licentiate with Thomas de Courcelles and Jean Le Fèvre. He became a licentiate in December 31, 1429, along with Evrard, du Quesnay and Jean Le Sauvage. Proclaimed master at Paris on February 20, 1431, he taught there with so many others of Jeanne’s judges (September 1431-1434). A register of Martin V tells us that he was named Abbot of Mortemer on November 26, 1428. This theologian first took refuge in the opinion of the masters of Paris, and then he judged as did Gilles de Duremort. He was present at the abjuration.


Jean de Bouesgue, or Le Boesgue, or Bouège, was a Benedictine, bachelor and licentiate in 1403, master of theology and prior of the cloister and almoner of the abbey of the Holy Trinity at Fécamp from 1406. He was very much in favor with the University, which sent him as ambassador to Jean XXIII in order to obtain the revocation of the Bull of Alexander V in favor of the Mendicants in 1411- Jean de Bouesgue was attacked by brigands on the outskirts of Rome. He preached before the Pope and Cardinals. He became a friend of the Pope, who granted him in 1412 the priory of Gournay, and he is described as honorary chaplain of the Pontiff in 1416. But we know that in 1408 he was prosecuted before the church court of Paris by Estoud d’Estouteville for the maladministration of his abbey and negligence in caring for the poor and the lepers. On March 18, 1422, we see Jean de Bouesgue entrusted by his colleagues with treating with the Bishop of Chester, Chancellor of Normandy, in the matter of the property of the abbey of Fécamp in England. He was designated by the University of Paris to go to the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy to obtain confirmation of its privileges. He was enjoined, beforehand, to communicate the instructions he had received to Pierre


Cauchon. In 1423 Jean de Bouesgue is referred to as master regent of theology at Paris, a charge that he gave up the following year. He was imprisoned over a dispute he had with the English council over a trial of clerics of Fécamp, but the University intervened on his behalf with the Duke of Bedford and the Abbot of Fécamp. We find him again master regent at Paris in 1433.

It is not astonishing to see a doctor of theology of Paris for twenty-five years, and an almoner of the abbey of Fécamp judging as did his teachers and his lord abbot. He agreed energetically.


Guillaume de Livet, master of arts and bachelor of law, canon of Lisieux, was received as canon of the church of Rouen by virtue of letters patent of the King of England in 1431. He was at various times promoter of the archiepiscopal See, for a while around 1414, and from 1436 to 1443- We note that in 1444 Guillaume de Livet was named commissioner of the canons for a treaty to be concluded between them and the archbishop; and we find him as a deputy at the Estates of Normandy in 1449. He died at Rouen, very old doubtless, on January 22, 1465, bearing in addition the title of curé of Saint Maclou.

This man of the law decided in accordance with the deliberations of the Faculty of Law at Paris; in the final sentence he took refuge in the authority of the Abbot of Fécamp Guillaume de Livet was not among the witnesses called at the time of the Rehabilitation.


Guérould Poustel, Postelli, was only a bachelor of arts in both canon and civil law at the University of Paris in 1434. But he is referred to as a lawyer in the church court at Rouen from 1424 on. We find that he lived at the Hotel de Saint Antoine at Rouen, adjoining the cloister, where he received Abbot Richard en garde.


Jean Le Tavernier, Tabernarii, of Rouen was a bachelor of canon law at Paris in 1428. He is referred to as priest and friar of the King’s hospital at Rouen in 1433



Pierre Cochon was a notary of Rouen. He was clerk of wills in 1426, and describes himself in his chronicles in 1425 as priest and notary. He was already in Rouen in 1406 and was still living in that city on July 29, 1430; he was present at the entry of little King Henry VI.

Pierre Cochon was born at Fontaine le Dun in the viscounty of Arques. But his father, Jean Cochon, was a burgess of Rouen. In 1433, still at Rouen, Pierre took part, in company with Guillaume Manchon, in a riot caused by clerics arrested by the King’s sergeant, and he was arrested as the ringleader. In 1435, with Manchon, he authenticated Bedford’s will. In 1437 we see that he was present at the blessing of the chapel of the Close Saint Marc, founded by his colleague Guillaume Le Cars, and that he acquired from the brotherhood of notaries in 1438 sixty sous as income on a house in the rue Fils-Guy. The following year he took his income to the provost and brother notaries. On April 1, 1437, he is cited as curé of Vitefleur and founded his memorial masses at the Confrèrie. Jacques Cochon, his brother and heir, priest and curé of Granville la Teinturière, approved this foundation on September 21, 1440. In 1446 Pierre Cochon is still clerk of wills “under Maistre Guillaume de Désert,” one of Jeanne’s judges who is cited as being master of intestates; and in 1448 Pierre is named as his secretary. Pierre Cochon died on February 22, 1449, and was buried in the cemetery of Saint Étienne le Grand, a church appertaining to the cathedral.


Simon Davy, Simo Davus, was a notary of Rouen, provost and governor of the fellowship of notaries of Rouen in 1433.


Guillaume Lecras, a Rouen priest, was notary public of the archiepiscopal court and auditeur of witnesses.


Philibert de Montjeu, a Burgundian noble, was canon of Amiens and later Bishop of Coutances by the protection of the dukes of Burgundy and Bedford. On June 4, 1427, we find a petition of Philibert‘s to the treasury to deliver to him the income rendered to the See by the barony


of Saint Sauveur Lendelin. At the end of 1431 Philibert went to the Council of Bâle where he played a very important role. In 1433 he was called to Bohemia where he stayed for three years, working toward the reunion of that country with the Church. He presided at the sixth session which proclaimed the Pope contumacious.

He was a very zealous Burgundian. On June 29, 1428, Henry VI ordered that his , expenses be paid on a trip from the country of Cotentin to Paris to the Duke of Bedford and the Council “for the good and profit and usefulness to the country in the expulsion of the brigands and enemies of the said lord who were in it.” On’ July 14 Philibert de Montjeu and Enguerrand de Champrond gave a receipt to Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy, for the sum Of 225 livres on account Of 450 livres which was owed them for this mission of forty-seven days. The opinion that he gave at Constance concerning the Maid was expressed in the harshest terms.

We know also that Philibert de Montjeu was procédurier and that he proved himself to be very rigorous, with Jean Graverent, in the prosecution of Jean Le Couvreur, a burgess of Saint Lô suspected of heresy, who demanded appeals to take his case before the Pope. In 1440, forbidden by illness to conduct a trial, he commissioned Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Lisieux, to take his place, and André Marguerie, archdeacon of Petit Caux, and Robert Le Barbier, canon of Rouen, all of them judges of the Maid and his good friends.

It is interesting to note that the See of Coutances was the last religious rampart of the Anglo-Burgundian fanatics, more so than even the See of Lisieux. Philibert de Montjeu was succeeded as bishop by the harsh Gilles de Duremort (1439-1453), and by the lettered, scornful Zanon de Castiglione (11444-1453). Richard de Longueil succeeded all these enemies of Jeanne and the King of France and worked toward her rehabilitation.


Zanon de Castiglione, of Milan, succeeded in 1424, as Bishop of Lisieux, his uncle, Branda de Castiglione. He was a celebrated jurist and professor at Paris, whom one finds frequently entrusted with embassies in France and Bohemia and who received his elevation as bishop at the hands of Martin V. In that year Zanon took the oath of loyalty to the church of Rouen.

On January 2.8, 1430, Zanon obtained expectations of being Bishop of


Bayeux, to which he was transferred in 1432. In 1434 he was sent as a deputy of Henry VI to the Council of Bile; he departed with a commission from the Duke of Gloucester to buy for him all the books he could, especially those of Guarino of Ferrara and Leonardo Bruni. He spent a year in Florence, singing the praises of his master to the Italians, who henceforth entered into relationships with his English patron. On July 1, 1441, Zanon was present with Pierre Cauchon upon the entry of the Duke of York into the cathedral of Rouen. He replaced Cauchon on the King’s Council in 1443 and he celebrated the requiem mass for Cardinal de Luxembourg. The following year he traveled about Lower Normandy with many other members of the Council to Provide the necessities of the country “for the good and honor of the King and his justice.” In 1445 Zanon came to Charles VII to treat of the marriage project between Edward of York and Jeanne of France, and that same year as dean of suffragans he was in charge of transmitting to the other bishops the orders for the convocation of the Council. The next year he was sent by Henry VI to the Sovereign Pontiff on the matter of the dispensing of commands, and he journeyed to Normandy with the commissioners of the King of England to assemble the members of the Estates “to have their advice upon the actions, maintenance and conduct of affairs of the seigneurie of the King.” In 1448 he inspected the situations and fortresses in the territories of Cotentin and Alençon, and he obtained from the English king delays for the inventory of the property of his See. When the English cause was lost, Zanon allied himself without difficulty with Charles VII, to whom he swore allegiance in November 3, 1449. He was nominated Bishop of Pavia in 1453 and sent by Pope Calixtus III to the Council of Ratisbon to treat with the Emperor. Zanon was created Cardinal in 1456 and then created Papal Legate to the March of Ancona by Pius 11. He died suddenly of a fever at Macerta in 1459.

Italian in nationality, English at heart, and a man of the Renaissance, the opinion that he delivered concerning Jeanne, dated at Bayeux, is full of contempt. This political bishop was not a Christian. But he was very well educated, and he must have been very greatly respected by all the Norman clerics as the nephew of Branda, who founded at Pavia in memory of all the benefits he had received in France, a college for the students of Lisieux, Bayeux and Evreux. Zanon was himself the first conservator of the privileges of the University of Caen.



Guillaume Adelie, Dominican, became a bachelor of theology in 1421, and licentiate on January 12, 1428, master on June 8, and master regent at Paris in the month of September. He was still teaching there in 1438. He is not to be confused with Guillaume Adeline, the master of theology who was condemned for sorcery.


Jean Fouchier, Friar Minor, studied theology at Paris but without taking degrees. In 1439, at the time of publication of the privileges of the University of Caen he was preaching and was described as follows: “famosus sacrae paginae professor, mag. Joh. Foucherii, Ord. Frat. Minorum, ipsiusque ordinis in provincia Rothomagensi custos.”


Jean Maugier, Maugerii, of the diocese of Rouen, was master of arts in 1403 and bachelor of canon law, and licentiate in law but not in theology. He was born about 1370 and was received as canon of Rouen in 1421 in place of Jean Porcher, who remained faithful to France. He held, from 1423 on, a general commission to prosecute all trials relative to the Church. He was a deputy to the Estates of Paris in 1424, pénitencier of the church of Rouen in 143-2, vicar of Pontoise in 1436. He must have died before June 11, 1440

In his consultation on the subject of the Twelve Articles, Jean Maugier asserted always his readiness to accomplish the good pleasure of Pierre Cauchon. We find that he gave two houses to the Chapter of Rouen.


Jean Eude was a bachelor of theology. He does not appear to have studied at Paris.


Jean Dacier, Benedictine, was a licentiate in civil law and prior of Besson. He was Abbot of Belfont in 1418 and Abbot of Saint Corneille in Compiègne after June 23, 1424. He was completely acquired by the Burgundian party, as the notes of Dom Gilesson prove, which are preserved in a few copies of the ancient archives of Compiègne. A former almoner of Pope Martin V, Jean Dacier died on May 4, 1437, after


having been present at the Council of Bâle as representative of the abbeys of the province of Reims. The abbey of Saint Corneille was in the heart of the city near the great market.


Guillaume Erart, a native of the diocese of Langres, was a doctor of theology; be is not to be confused with Guillaume Evrard. He was a master of arts, a bachelor of theology, and became rector of the University on February 26, 1421. He was procureur of the “nation” of France in 1426 and was en rapport with Jean Graverent, the Inquisitor, on the subject of heretics who had appealed to the Pope. He received his degree as licentiate and then as master of theology in 1428. He taught at Paris from September, 1428, at the same time as Pierre de Dyerée, Pierre Le Mire, Jean Gravestain, and Guillaume Adelie. In December, 1430, he pleaded before the Parlement against Geoffroy le Normant, declaring that he had been ordained “master of grammarians of the College de Navarre.” In 1429 Guillaume Erart had been sent to Champagne by the King of England, along with Pierre Cauchon; Geoffroy protested that it was not his duty to teach children “and he ought to employ himself in preaching”; he declared besides that he had more than thirty livres income, was cure in Normandy with eighty francs income, and that he was a canon of Laon and canon and sacristan of Langres. Erart made allusion to a journey that he had made in Germany, to Bâle. We find him at Paris in September, 1431, among the master regents, and on January 25, 1432, he presided at Paris over the examination for the licentiate, when Thomas de Courcelles received first rank. Nicolas Loiseleur was his first pupil at Paris in 14311432. And Guillaume Bonnel, Abbot of Cormeilles, dean of the Faculty of Law, took action against him for “at the last licentiate examination (1432) he opened the list of licentiates which the masters had given him.” In 1433 he is called the vice-chancellor of Nôtre Dame. In August in the name of the University he made before Parlement at Paris a “grief compliante” on the subject of the royal ordinance on the repurchase of rentes of the churches and colleges of Paris. Guillaume Erart is mentioned for the last time among the master regents in September, 1433. Henceforth he was in Normandy. He entered the Chapter of Rouen on July 17, 1432. Later he is to be found in Paris where he went to “further the liberties of the Church.” Named archdeacon of


Grand Caux in 1433, he fulfilled in turn the trusts of chancellor, precentor and vicar-general. On February 7, 1434, he was named professor of theology and received a canonicate at Nôtre Dame in Paris by recommendation of the Bishop of Paris, Jacques du Châtelier, a worldly prelate who was elevated to the rank of bishop by the favor of Bedford and Philippe le Bon of Burgundy. He was the executor of the will of Hugues des Orges, Archbishop of Rouen in 1434, and he disputed with the canons of Nôtre Dame the subject of the succession to office by the wealthy Alespée and the latter alienated him from the Chapter. He appealed to the Pope.

A friend of Louis de Luxembourg, Guillaume Erart went to England to swear fealty in his name to Henry VI for the perpetual administration of the church of Ely. The King of England charged him to go to Arras in company with Raoul Roussel and Jean de Rinel in 1435 to treat for peace, and he responded very dryly to the fine and pacific discourse of Thomas de Courcelles. On November 12, 1436, Guillaume Erart presided at an assembly of prelates “for a certain need touching public affairs and the coming of certain English lords” to Normandy. In 1437 he was named chaplain to the King and received an annual income of twenty pounds sterling for services rendered to the Crown. Guillaume Erart from that time on lived in England, and we note that the canons of Rouen charged him to reclaim the legacies made to their church by Henry V and Bedford. Named dean of the cathedral in place of the late Gilles Deschamps, Guillaume Erart did not take possession of this dignity, which, however, he accepted, and which shows all the hope the canons placed in his influence at the English court. He died in England in 1439, leaving great sums to the cathedral of Rouen and to the college of the community, and an enameled silver chalice to the Chapter. He bequeathed likewise a legacy Of 40 livres to the University of Paris. The executor of his will was the rigorous Pasquier de Vaux, Bishop of Evreux.

English at heart, like his patron Louis de Luxembourg, very active and unscrupulous, he appears to us as one of the most impassioned judges of Jeanne d’Arc, whom he condemned violently on the day of her abjuration.


Jean de Troyes, called Halbould, of the Mathurin order, was vice-dean of the Faculty of Theology in 1431. Licentiate in theology in 1403,


master in 1416, he gave his adherence to the condemnation of the propositions of Jean Petit. He was minister-general of the Order (Gallia, viii). In 1418 he went to the Duke of Bedford at Rouen. He was regent of the Faculty of Theology from 1421 on; he took part in the condemnation of the doctrines of Brother Jean Sarrasin (March 30, 1430). October, 1432, he is described as vice-dean of the Faculty when the University addressed an embassy to the Duke of Burgundy. The last mention of him that we can find is in 1438.


Pierre de Gouda, born at Leyden, studied at Paris from 1426 on, became a licentiate in 1427, was procureur of the English “nation,” in 1428, and was elected rector of the University on March 24, 1431- He became a canon of Utrecht in 1433, and addressed a petition to obtain a parish church at Rotterdam in 1439


Guérould Boissel, also written as G. Boissely and Géraud Boissel, was a doctor of law and was designated by the Chapter of Rouen on February 12, 1431, to represent it at the Council of Bâle, with Jean Beaupère, Thomas Fiesvet and Thomas de Courcelles.

Regent doctor of the Faculty of Law from 1423, he was elected dean on March 2, 1430. In October, 1431, he was delegated by the Faculty of Law to take the rolls to Rome with Henri Thiboust, Thomas de Courcelles and Pierre de Gouda. The last mention of him is made in 1433


Pierre de Dyerée, Petrus de Dierreyo, was the old dean of the Faculty and professor of theology. In 1403 he is described as a prebendary canon of the church of Troyes, master of arts and theology, and had been regent in theology for ten years. The last mention of him is made in September, 1433. On November 4, 1433, a service was celebrated for his soul at Saint Mathurin’s and the Bishop of Meaux officiated en pontifical,


Henri Thiboust, priest of Coutances, was in T403 master of arts and medicine, and was pénitencier of Coutances and Bayeux, and rector of the church of Saint Pierre de Hambye in the diocese of Coutances.


He was master regent in medicine at Paris in 1414, at the same time as Guillaume de La Chambre, and was a colleague of Guillaume Desjardins in 14,8. In 1422 he was delegated by the University to go to the Council of Constance; in 1428 he obtained from Martin V the authority to teach medicine during his lifetime. He was vice-dean in 1430 and in 1431 we see him designated as ambassador to carry the rolls to Rome, with Guérould Boissel, Thomas de Courcelles and Pierre de Gouda. He took part, in 1432, in the deliberation which decided to send ambassadors to the Duke of Burgundy. He was named dean on November 6, 1433. In 1438 he was ambassador to the Council of Bourges; in 1439 he is cited as pénitencier and canon of Paris. Henri Thiboust is mentioned for the last time among the regents of the Faculty of Medicine in 1449. He died in his house in the rue du Fouarre and his body was carried in state to Nôtre Dame.


Jean Barrey or Barret, of the diocese of Tulle, was bachelor of arts as in 1403, master of arts and received first ranking, as bachelor of law in 1415; he became a licentiate in 1416. Is he the one mentioned in the deliberations of the Faculty?


Gerolfus de Holle, or Hole, master of arts, received his licentiate in law under Guérould Boissel on March 14, 1430.


Richardus Abessor was a master of arts. He studied in the Faculty of Theology as cursor in 1430.


Jean Vacheret was a cleric of the diocese of Autun, and beadle of the Faculty of Theology. He was under-beadle in 1403 and became beadle in 1418.


Boemondus de Lutrea, given in the deliberation of the University on the Trial as beadle of the “nation” of France, exercised for a long time the duties of beadle of the English “nation.”



Jean Soquet, of the diocese of Rouen, was a professor of theology. In 1403 he is cited as master of arts, having taught eight years in the rue du Fouarre and studied ten years in the Faculty of Theology. He became a licentiate in theology in 1422, and was teaching at the same time as Jean Beaupère, Pierre de Dyerée, Jean de Troyes, Erard Emengart, Martin Billorin, Pierre Miget, Denis de Sabrevois, Nicolas Midi, Pierre de Houdenc, Jean Le Fèvre, and Guillaume Adelie, all theologians hostile to the Maid. Jean Soquet is mentioned for the last time as among the master regents in 1434. We know that he returned to Rouen in 1433 to the Chapter on business relative to the Council of Bâle.


Jean Gravestain was a Dominican and professor of theology. He studied the Bible at Paris in 1421 at the same time as Jean Le Fèvre. He became a licentiate in 1426, master in 1427, and was a regent in the Faculty of Theology in September, 1429.


Simon de La Marc, Simo de Mara, was a Norman, a master of arts and licentiate in medicine on February 21, 1430, and a master regent in November, 1430, a Faculty colleague of Henri Thiboust and Gilles Canivet. We encounter him in Rouen in November, 1435, and learn that he could not return to Paris because of the dangers of travel.


André Pelé became a licentiate in law in March, 1428. He was elected by the French “nation” to take the rolls to Pope Eugene IV in June, 1437.


Guillaume Estochart, not Oscochart, was a master of arts. In 1426 be became a licentiate in law, and on October 10, 1431, rector of the University.


Jean Trophard, of the diocese of Bayeux, was master of arts and bachelor of law in 1403. We find another Jean Trophard, likewise of


the diocese of Bayeux, who became master of arts in 1418 and bachelor of theology after 1452 at the University of Caen.


Martin de Berech, not Bereth, was a Hungarian. He was a master of arts, and cursor in the Faculty of Law in October, 1430, and received his bachelor’s degree that year and was rector of the University on October 7, 1432, when the University deliberated about sending an ambassador to the Duke of Burgundy. In January, 1429, he fought Paul Nicolas, a Hungarian or Slav, who, having been admitted in the English “nation,” attacked the authority of that group, saying that “they were only a small number of people and did not have opinions and did not need to be heard like the other ‘nations!


Jean Bourillet was a priest of the diocese of Autun, a master of arts, licentiate in law, and a fifth year student of theology in 1403. He studied at Paris at the same time as Pierre Cauchon. In 1414 he is cited as master of the collège of Fortet, and deputy to the Council of Pisa. In 1448, at the age of seventy, he resigned as treasurer of the church at Sens.


Thomas Amouret, Amoreti, was a Dominican, a bachelor of theology in 1435, and received his licentiate on January 20, 1444, and was proclaimed master on May 22. We find that he preached a sermon in Rouen in 1438.


This Benedictine of Cluny, Bertrand du Chesne, de Quercu, was a licentiate in law in 1416, and dean of Lihons, doctor in 1426 and master regent the year following. In 1429 he sustained a trial before Parlement against the collège de Cluny at Paris. Pope Eugene IV named him Abbot of Saint Pierre de Hanon in the diocese of Arras in 1439


Louis de Luxembourg was Bishop of Thérouanne and chancellor of Henry VI and was the brother of the rough Burgundian captain, Jean, who sold the Maid to the Bishop of Beauvais.

He was elected dean of the church of Beauvais on May 31, 1414, and


at times resided at Rouen before 1430, living in the archbishop’s palace, He espoused the interests of the English entirely and responded to the call that Bedford issued to the nobility of Picardy. We know that he occupied himself in putting Paris in a defensive position when Bedford retired to Normandy. He was present at the coronation of Henry VI at Nôtre Dame and was the executor of the will of Isabelle of Bavaria.

On April 7, 1432 (new style), King Henry ordered his treasurer-general in Normandy, Jean Stanlawe, to pay to Louis de Luxembourg, his chancellor in France, 1,000 livres “to help him support the great expenses which in the cause of our service he had had, and has, to pay.” He was very much in favor with the English government. In 1422 he * had been head of the embassy which went from France to London to felicitate the young Henry VI upon his accession to the throne. He was favorably looked upon by the Chapter of Nôtre Dame of Rouen which, on the news that the Bishop of Thérouanne had been named Archbishop by the Pope, decided, on January 13, 1430, to take steps to urge him to accept the nomination.

He was strongly allied with Bedford; he was the executor of Bedford’s will, and we see that after the death of Bedford’s duchess, Anne, Louis placed his niece, Jacquette de Saint Paul in his hands. She was a girl of seventeen, and Bedford married her, to the amazement of Philippe le Bon of Burgundy. This marriage contributed not a little to alienating the Duke of Burgundy from the English alliance. In 1436, during the Parisian insurrection against the English, Louis de Luxembourg took refuge in the Bastille, where Richemont besieged him. He had to abandon his property to the conquerors and was transported to Rouen down the Seine. On January 15, 1437, as he was disposed to journey to England, the Chapter of Rouen had mass said for his happy voyage and reminded him of Bedford’s legacies to the churches of Rouen. He was named Archbishop of Rouen on October 24, 1436, and was later made Cardinal by Eugene IV (1440). He became Bishop of Ely when he finally went to England, but kept all his prerogatives as Archbishop of Rouen. Raoul Roussel, who replaced him, was, moreover, one of his intimates. Louis de Luxembourg did not lack, however, means of indemnifying himself for his losses. Henry VI gave him a pension of 1,000 marks from the Exchequer and 1,000 livres from the revenues of Normandy. The church of Ely was worth 2,000 livres. He resided rarely in his See, which he administered through a procureur.


He lived splendidly in his manors, moving with a great train of baggage and horses. He was appointed ambassador by Henry VI in December, 1442, to treat for peace with Charles VII, his adversary, and died on September 18, 1443, in his castle of Hatfield. Pasquier de Vaux was the executor of his will. His heart was sent to Rouen and his body was buried in a magnificent tomb in Ely Cathedral, near the altar of holy relics.

While charged with the defense of Paris, Louis de Luxembourg, then Bishop of Thérouanne, — who, the Journal dun Bourgeois de Paris assures us, was a “full-blooded man” — had brought from Saint Denis the Maid’s armor, negotiated her sale to the English, was present at the Trial, her abjuration and torture. Upon the testimony of André Marguerie he could even weep: singular tears on the part of him whom Percival de Cagny denounced as one of the authors of Jeanne’s death.


Jean de Mailly, Bishop of Noyon, was one of the principal members of the English King’s Council, and a very fanatical Burgundian.

He was a licentiate in law, councilor of Parlement (1401) master of petitions of the hôtel (1418), and president of the Chamber of Accounts in 1424. He became dean of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois at Paris and was called to Noyon as Bishop by Martin V on July 20, 1425. The following year, with Louis de Luxembourg, he was designated to pacify the dispute concerning heretic witchcraft between the Bishop of Paris and Jean Graverent, Inquisitor. From 1424 on we find him at Rouen present at the sessions of the Exchequer, and he was appointed by the English government. He accompanied the young King to Paris, as well as Pierre Cauchon, and was present at Nôtre Dame as ecclesiastical peer, at Henry VI’s coronation ceremonies. He subscribed to the safeguard accorded to Jeanne’s judges.

Jean de Mailly was not very old at the time of the Rehabilitation (he was born about 1396). He alleged, however, that he had been present at only one session of the Trial and declared that he remembered nothing about it. He was, nevertheless, present at the abjuration scene and at the burning of the Maid. In 1443 Jean de Mailly received in procession Charles VII in his city of Noyon. In 1435 he had taken part in the embassy which announced to Charles the happy conclusion of the Peace of Arras. He died February 14, 1472, leaving to his church


his Bible, a manuscript on vellum. He was above all else a diplomat and financier.


Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, was made Cardinal in 1426; he was the Chancellor of England, and great-uncle of the King.

This illegitimate son of John of Gaunt was Grand Chancellor of Henry V and Henry VI, banker to the State, and a candidate for the Papacy. He was the implacable enemy of the Duke of Gloucester, was a warrior and later a peacemaker, and intrigued with all the courts of Europe. He was ambitious and a miser. As Martin V‘s legate to Germany he preached for a crusade against the Hussites in Bohemia. Alarmed at his increasing power, Gloucester persuaded him to go to France in April, 1430. He crowned Henry VI at Paris on December 17, 1431, and was employed in all the affairs of that year. He returned to England in May, 1432, Shakespeare’s tragedy of Henry VI gives us a perfect portrait of this strange prelate.


William Alnwick was Bishop of Norwich (1426-1436) and later (1436-1449) of Lincoln. He was a monk of St. Alban’s and in the confidence of Henry V. Henry VI made him his confessor and keeper of the privy seat. He was educated and enjoyed a great reputation for sanctity and orthodoxy. He prosecuted very vigorously the heretic Lollards. Alnwick had an influence in the great scholarly foundations of Henry VI and occupied himself in restoring Lincoln Cathedral. In 1425 he was recommended by the King of England to the Holy See for the Bishopric of Ely.


Thomas Frique, Benedictine, was prior, then abbot, of Bec-Hellouin, and was confirmed by the Pope in this latter dignity on August 8, 1430. He lived at Rouen in his hôtel in the rue du Bec. We see him take his place after the Abbot of Saint Ouen in an assembly of prelates convoked in the Archbishop’s chapel, a precedence he long contested. He died in 1446.


Robert Jolivet of Montpichon, Joliveti R. abbas Montis, R. abbé da Mont, was a Norman Benedictine, a bachelor of law in 1416, and be.


came Abbot of Mont Saint Michel in 1411. He fled from his abbey which remained faithful to Charles VII and took refuge with the English about 141g. He went on various missions for Bedford, and became his chancellor and keeper of his privy seal in 1423. We see Robert Jolivet on May 27, 1428, as the representative of Bedford at the foundation of the Carmelites in Rouen.

Extremely devoted to the government of Henry VI, this religious played an important role in diplomacy and even in military matters, inspecting troops and visiting fortresses. He was a member of all the important councils. In 1425 he was commissioned by the King of England to recover the abbey which he had so admirably fortified before his departure. Between April and June, 1428, Robert Jolivet was at Paris awaiting the coming of Salisbury and the English army “to advise and conclude where he would be sent.” In November he went to Mantes to see Bedford about the siege of Orleans. On September 12, 1430, Jolivet is cited as chancellor with the considerable salary of 800 livres a year. He resided at Rouen in order to serve the King. On November 16, 1431, King Henry ordered the payment of the wages of the ten lancers and thirty mounted archers who had escorted him (with the Abbot of Fécamp) to Paris where he had been summoned. On July 23, 1436, King Henry VI ordered him and the Bishop of Lisieux and the Earl of Suffolk to call together the Three Estates at Caen and to take part in the project of establishing a university there. Jolivet was buried at Rouen in the church of Saint Michel in July, 1444.


Jacques Le Camus or Camus does not appear to have been a doctor of theology, but he must, however, have studied at Paris. He was canon of Reims from January, 1423, and titular holder of a second canonicate in the collegiate church of Saint Symphorien in 1428. He lost all his benefices, having embraced the cause of Henry VI who, when Le Camus was deprived of his property by the King of France, gave him the benefice as cure of La Trinité of Falaise, which had been abandoned by Adam Mesgret, who had fled to Reims. Jacques Le Camus died in October, 1438.


Nicole Bertin was a canon of Lisieux. We encounter him on May 25, 1454, making a foundation in favor of the Collège du Saint Esprit,


as executor of the will of the late Jean Bidault, archdeacon of Augé in the church of Lisieux, canon of Reims, Rouen, Lisieux and Mans. As executor of Pierre Cauchon’s will he approved his legacy in favor of Saint Cande le Vieux in 1450, We know that Bidault, brother-in-law of Jean de Rinel, had desired “some foundation be made for his soul and that of the late Reverend Father in God, Messire Pierre Cauchon, in his lifetime Bishop of Lisieux and of Beauvais.” JULIEN FLOSQUET

Julien Flosquet is cited in a petition of 1419 without his University ranking. In 1434 he became canon of Thérouanne.


Guillaume du Desert was born at Paris about 1400. He was nominated for a canonicate in the church at Rouen in 1421 by Henry V. On February 12, 1432, he took at Paris the degree of bachelor of law. He was in turn master of wills, from 1446 to 1448 master of work at the cathedral, which his family had endowed. Guillaume du Désert fulfilled various missions which allowed him to think that he was a valuable man. He went to England to claim the payment of legacies that Henry V and Bedford had made to the cathedral. He was absent from Rouen when Charles VII entered the city, and he obtained without trouble new letters of provision, and he undertook to get the King’s confirmation of the Norman charter in 1452. The following year he fulfilled a mission to Rome. He was curé of Saint Nicolas le Painteur. Guillaume du Désert died on January 25, 1471, and was buried in the cathedral although he was curé of Saint Hilaire.

He was certainly an educated man, for he owned some fine books which he bequeathed to the Chapter library. His decision in Jeanne’s case was propped on that of the Abbot of Fécamp. Guillaume du Désert was consulted among the first witnesses at the Rehabilitation proceedings: he had been present at Jeanne’s abjuration and execution. In his testimony he declared that he recalled very little about it, saying, for example, that “if Jeanne had taken the part of the English as she had that of the French she would not have been treated like that.”


Robert Ghillebert or Gilbert, an Englishman, was doctor of theology and was at the time of Jeanne’s trial dean of the King of England’s


chapel. He became in 1433 Dean of York and he reports in a petition to Eugene IV (November 17, 1435) that in the time when he had followed the King in all the battles won in France he had seen many murders, fires, etc., and that he rejoiced from the depths of his heart when his countrymen were victorious just as he suffered profoundly when they were beaten. He was still Dean of York when he was confirmed as Bishop of London by Eugene IV on May 21, 1436.


Jean Toutmouille, Dominican, who brought to the Trial his title as doctor of theology, could not have acquired this degree at Paris, for the University documents do not mention him. We find that he preached a sermon at Rouen in 1458.



Translated by

Coley Taylor and Ruth H. Kerr


The Record of the Trial of Jeanne D’Arc (Procès de Condamnation) is justly one of the most celebrated documents of our history. It makes known to us a cause which has seriously shocked human conscience, and at the same time reveals to us the most authentic and most poignant experiences in the life of the heroic Jeanne D’Arc, the pride and mirror of a people. This document makes us, after a fashion, witnesses of a drama of the deepest pathos, where innocence and youth were victims of political passion, of theological and juridical knowledge. Formal law triumphs here over candor and intuition.

For a long time, even before the admirable edition of Jules Quicherat, historians have accorded to this document a very special, not to say exclusive, importance. This record it is that reports the very words of Jeanne, which presents to us the scenes of her martyrdom. We place to-day the Procès de Réhabilitation in the same category. Besides the questions of the judges, and the replies of Jeanne, we wish to hear the remarks that the witnesses who knew her have to make, the people of her countryside, especially those of her companions-in-arms. Besides, the two records complete each other admirably; they are inseparable; they present the drama and the idyll. In the midst of the settings, in the ring of fire evoked by these documents, the figure of Jeanne appears, much more clearly, closer to us, than from the words of contemporary chroniclers, or those of modern historians. In their innocent pages, in their works so filled with erudition or fervor, one always has the impression that the figure of Jeanne, so close to earth, so near to heaven, is merely glimpsed. The trial records give us something nowhere else achieved. The most beautiful telling of the story of Jeanne d’Arc, the most authentic, the most moving, lives within these two documents.


It is astonishing to realize that her story has remained inaccessible in an edition that has become very rare, complete only in the Latin, a tongue formerly known to all but which, alas, is becoming less and less familiar to ‘the generality of men. It is to meet to some degree this public need that 1, a few years ago, at the request of my father, undertook the publication of the Latin text of the Procès de Condamnation, together with a French translation which would be followed by the Procès de Réhabilitation. This work was to have appeared in 1914; the introduction was written in great part in the trenches of the Somme, on leave, or on quiet nights.

This great trial, this “most celebrated trial,” (1) one of the most impressive juridical monuments of the time, has not been accessible to readers up to this time. We shall now penetrate into this somber cathedral of logic and theology, just as one pushes open, at evening, the door of a vast church where, in the light of candles, some solemn or funereal rite is being celebrated. We shall be present at the most dramatic of dramas in its formalism of implacable justice; we shall hear the clear voice of Jeanne in the midst of so many climaxes when the hatred of her judges broke through the feigned sweetness and the appearances of law; when rhetoric made laughable the secular arm, even then we shall experience the fire, the moral suffering worse than torture, the dungeon and irons which she was not permitted to escape. In this great drama, a crowd of supernumeraries is busy. Two nations await the sentence. A scheming bishop who aspires to be archbishop, sits as judge in this high tribunal. He has for acolytes, for accomplices, the canons of an ancient cathedral, the instruments of the most celebrated university of the world, that of Paris, the greatest authority of learning of the time, which had seen the collapse of all spiritual power and was itself all the spiritual authority. The bishop puts before the Holy See the fait accompli, acts upon that other redoubtable power, the holy inquisition. Rome, Rouen, Paris are the principal scenes of the drama. Two nations have rôles to play. To place these scenes, to descend, as far as we may, into the hearts of the players in this trial, is the object of this essay, and of the numerous notes [which are translated here in Dramatis Personae], and which will permit one to approach the reading of this document with clearer advantage. For now that we are

——————————– (1) Celeberrimus processus, says the circular letter of Henry VI, June 6, 1431.


better informed, the Trial has completely changed in aspect. This Trial is no longer precisely that of Jeanne. It has become the trial of her judges. Proper reversal of things here below: condemnation of the mistakes of people who have undertaken to prove too much.

What is the origin of this great trial record, edited some years after Jeanne’s death? It was especially the apology of her judges. They are instructing posterity: We acted righteously, tenderly, justly, they say. We were not hurried or impassioned men. We English did not, as it was our right to do, treat this girl as an enemy, although she had inflicted upon us so many defeats and losses. We, ecclesiastical judges, acted according to the immutable doctrine of the Church, in accordance with all the forms of law, after having exhausted the aid of all the lights of reason. And from that reasoning followed the necessity of giving to the document great publicity which should, in advance, thwart all inclinations toward rehabilitation.

Until then what was known of Jeanne? A marvelous adventure, crowned with success, then discredited by reverses; the news traveled thoughout the world of a great trial, under the auspices of the University of Paris, and almost those of the Papacy, a trial one was forbidden to criticize under pain of prison; a sentence commented upon in public addresses, sermons, and broadcast by circulars backed up by threats. That is all that was known.

It was certainly not enough to hush the legend of Jeanne, to deflect the popular fervor from her who had been worshiped during her life by the good people of France. It was important also for her judges to give all the publicity possible to the great machine of procedure which the Trial was, to publish openly the astounding declarations of this obstinate Jeanne and the advice so full of moderation and weight given to this simple girl by the scholars; it was necessary to show Jeanne contradicting herself, recanting in the face of fire, and finally recognizing her errors, her folly, her deception. Catholic people could no longer have faith in her who had lost faith in herself. All this, fated to influence opinion, the attentive reader may find in the Trial Record; all this, which was prepared and manufactured with the greatest care. And so the judges who had had the satisfaction of seeing realized, in all or in part of the scenario of the drama written in advance in their minds, thought to establish their innocence in some fashion for posterity. Such is the strength, and such is the weakness of this great monument,


of which the juridical and theological arguments rest upon vain foundations, a monument so logical, and so fragile. Here appears the weakness of an epoch otherwise full of sap and exuberance; the abuse of logic, of scholasticism, of formalism. Regularity is not truth; law is not justice; to think in group, conforming to tradition, is not to think; to judge in accordance with unitary and authoritative policies, following the law of the strongest, to judge according to the convention, is not to judge at all. The words of the Imitation come to memory: “Even though you know all the Bible and the sayings of the philosophers, what shall it serve you if you have not grace and love?”

And so it is Jeanne’s judges that we, in our turn, shall judge; posterity makes a bill of accusation of their apologia.


The Procès de Condamnation of Jeanne d’Arc is a masterpiece of partiality under the appearance of the most regular of procedures.

Rarely has injustice taken the likeness of justice, to this degree; rarely has an assembly seemed so little imbued with zeal for the safety of the soul and body of a poor and saintly girl; rarely has one invoked with such hypocrisy its own impartiality and shown likewise a false goodwill towards helping an unlettered woman to defend herself. And the judges at Rouen clothe themselves moreover in the opinion of that almost celestial light of the time — of the entire world — the learned University of Paris. What cowardly opinions were screened behind decisions entirely political, but so sagely argued, by the Faculties of Theology and Law!

It was a well-ordered trial, a machine of procedure superbly synchronized, put in motion under the highest, most redoubtable authority of that time, the authority of the justice of the Church. Never were witnesses and formal evidence received with so much care; no trial of that period-save that of Jean, duc d’Alençon, tried by his peers — was conducted in so impressive and stately a manner. (Three or four canons, designated by the chapter, sufficed in those days to instruct the court in matters of faith.)

And no trial received such publicity: five authentic copies were drawn up of this great session; circulars were sent to make the conclusions


known immediately to the princes of Europe, to ecclesiastics, to cities; and it was not wise to speak ill of the Judges of the Maid!

This monument of iniquity, this masterpiece of technique has finally borne its fruit.

As her judges wished, Jeanne was condemned as a heretic; the English burned her, as they had desired; and they could say, among themselves, that a witch had led Charles, King of France, to the sacrament of Reims; but the formal regularity of the impressive trial made it impossible for one to dare pronounce the name of the Maid in the country of France.

Save in Orléans, where the worship of Jeanne persisted, associated as she was so inextricably with the memory of the city’s deliverance, the Trial Record put public opinion to sleep. She who had been worshiped in her lifetime, before whom candles had been burned and prayers said, whose ring had been kissed and clothing touched as a sacrament; she who had heard her legend run from one end of Europe to the other, was forgotten. The great procès the record in all ways regular, was there; the University of Paris and authority had spoken. She was doubted. See how the testimony became uncertain on the subject of Jeanne: we can find the only opinion favorable to Jeanne in a book of controversy, Le Champion des Dames, by Martin Le Franc in 1440; and even there, the pro and con is given.

The justice of man is often pitiless; the form of justice is so always, and to a greater degree; here it had to seem irreproachable. It took almost twenty-five years to destroy, piece by piece –and after endless formalities — this imposing machine that is the procès de Condamnation. Before that could happen France had to be reconquered by her king; the English bastille that was Rouen had to become French again. Charles VII has been accused, perhaps lightly, of ingratitude in this business; it would, doubtless, be fairer to reproach him with indolence and lack of clairvoyance.

Certainly, in 1452, many of Jeanne’s judges were dead; but they had lived full of honors and were recipients of benefices. Several among them, when called to make depositions before the Rehabilitation, were to lose their memories and to testify lamentably, like Caval and Tiphaine (who denied all participation in the Trial); or to change, like Guillaume de Désert who stated that “If Jeanne had taken the part of the English instead of that of the French, she would not have been treated in such


a way.” And certain of the judges surviving in 1452 had conveniently joined King Charles VII.

Jean Beaupère, rector of the University of Paris, so active in attacking Jeanne, was to invoke his title as a good Frenchman when the partisans of Charles VII entered Rouen (he was living then at Besançon, in a territory not opposed to the King) but he maintained, in 1 452, his opinions on the natural causes of Jeanne’s visions, and in the malice inherent to feminine nature. Thomas de Courcelles, the notorious Sorbonnist, was to explain before Charles VII the doctrine of the French Church in 1440 (in the definitive edition of the procès he had prudently suppressed his name wherever it had figured in the French minutes); he died dean of the chapter of Nôtre Dame. Guillaume de Conti, the Benedictine, was to congratulate Charles VII upon his entry into Paris. Another of her judges, Guillaume de Désert, obtained from King Charles the confirmation of the Norman charter. These facts scarcely indicate that they were held to be suspect.

All that might have been attempted in Jeanne’s favor during the process of the Trial was a sortie by force which would have contributed materially to the deliverance of the Maid: for her enemies had guarded against all the legal means on the day after her capture. To study the route she was made to travel before she was taken to Rouen, the heart of English power, is to recognize that they were aware of the sole eventuality which could have been of any help to Jeanne. And if, as the judges have been reproached for not doing, witnesses of the French party had been summoned to the trial at Rouen, armed with safe-conducts, it is not certain that they would have greatly served the cause of the Maid, whose virtue and sincerity could well do without their testimony. But it is certain, on the other hand, that the judges at Rouen would not have failed to compromise them, to confuse them in their doctrine by Jeanne’s replies, full of good faith, ‘assuredly, but of an orthodoxy often doubtful.

Jeanne seems to have been aware of these two alternatives. In the session of March 14th she was to say that her voices had told her that she was to be delivered by a “great victory.”

And it appears evident likewise that Jeanne cared little about witnesses from the French side appearing at her trial. When she had told of the angel bearing the precious crown to the king, at the time of the audience at Chinon, a tale that might have made poor Jeanne seem too


venturesome, she was asked whether she wished to have called in the testimony of the Archbishop of Reims, and that of the Sires de Boussac, Bourbon, La Trémouïlle and La Hire, she replied by a ruse . one full of good sense, however: “Call a messenger and I shall write to them all about the trial . . .” and otherwise she did not wish to have them believed or to rely upon them. She was asked further whether she would answer in the matter of her visions, in case the judges should summon the knights of her party, protected by safe-conducts: Jeanne replied prudently first to let them come, “then she would answer them.” The judges at Rouen then asked her whether she wished to rely upon the testimony of the religious of Poitiers who had examined her upon her arrival “in France”: Jeanne made this astonishing reply: “Do you think you can catch me up in this fashion and draw me to you?”

Between Jeanne and all the learned clerics, whether they were examiners at Poitiers or judges at Rouen, there was an abyss: _her divine candor. Of Regnault de Chartres, archbishop of Reims, Jeanne was to say “He would not dare say the contrary to what I have told you.” Poor Jeanne, she did not understand the adroit sharp breed of politicians. This Regnault, on the day after her capture at Compiègne, wrote to the good people of Reims “since she did not wish to believe counsel, she had done all as her pleasure was”; and he announced to them the coming of the little shepherd of Gévaudon, “who says neither more nor less than what Jehanne the Maid has said.” How would such witnesses have testified at Rouen!

It was, besides, too late; the immense machine was already in motion. How right were these counselors who judged, with Frère Ysambard, that they were asking poor Jeanne “questions too difficult, subtle and cunning, so that the great clerics and well-educated men who are present, would be at great pains to know how to answer them.” How far-seeing was that serious Norman cleric, Master Jean Lohier, in preferring to leave Rouen rather than have to give his opinion to the Bishop of Beauvais on the formal and fundamental regularity of the Trial “and that the said woman, who was a simple girl, did not have counsel in replying to so many masters and doctors, and in great matters, especially those touching her revelations, as she says. Ana for this it seems to him that the Trial is not valuable You see the


manner in which they proceed: they will catch her up if they can, in her own words ” (Deposition of Guillaume Manchon.)


To Jeanne’s judges, to these prejudiced, unfeeling judges, to these hateful judges, we must however do justice. We must find out the responsibilities, more or less heavy, that fell upon them and upon the assessors of the Procès de Condamnation. Of all the responsibilities, the University of Paris must be charged with the most important. As this university has changed a great deal, it is perhaps necessary to recall what was understood at that time by the University:

There are on the Mount Sainte Genevieve, on the sacred mount of learning, in the very peaceful rue de Sorbonne, in the midst of so many colleges, gardens, convents, stinking alleys where water and filth commingle, a poor college and a chapel which are frequented by pale emaciated clerics and young religious: it is the noted house of Sorbonne. There masters and students meet, students sometimes aged, sometimes starving, who for years have shared a common misery, a pallet of straw; have endured cold and hunger, aspiring to the titles of licentiate, or master, which will permit some to teach, others to meditate, and will procure for the cleverest the great means of success: access to the benefices. They are gathered there, all these sons of France, grouped in “nations,” thirsty for learning, for sound doctrine, accomplishing the vow of a pious mother. Some are the pride of their village, in some cases of their entire province. Timid, poor, ambitious, they elucidate solemnly the sacred texts of the Old and New Testaments, are attracted to lectures and discussions, to preaching, eaten with cares, made thin by their vigils, always ready to crush out error, to defend the Catholic faith, apt in sustaining opposite conclusions from the same premises: wrestlers in words.

And not distant, in the rue de Clos Bruneau, or at Saint Jean de Beauvais, are grouped the numerous disciples in the courses of the Law and the Decretals, appropriate for the administering of churches, for the discussion of the business of chapters and parishes, for instruction in and commentary upon, the laws.

In the neighborhood of Saint Côme are the doctors and the students


of medicine in smaller number; in the rue de Fouarre, in the stalls and sometimes in the street, the turbulent crowd of students of the arts, of science, philosophy and letters, jostle one another.

It is on the Mount Sainte Geneviève that comradeship is formed; it is there that esprit de corps is born. Students and asters, all are sons of Alma Mater, of this mother who nourishes them with the milk of knowledge, in this time which had a veritable superstition for the written word, for verbal learning. Masters and disciples were to meet again at the Trial of Jeanne in which university friendships certainly played a strong part.

The University of Paris was the federation of masters of the Faculty of Theology, Law, Medicine and that of the arts. It held general assemblies in the Chapel of the Mathurins, where we shall see masters reunite precisely on the matter of the trial of Jeanne. The kings and popes were but patrons of this great republic, nothing more.

The Faculty of Theology was comprised only of the ecclesiastics giving their instruction in the great religious houses. Charged with teaching the Word of God, the doctors of theology had to defend the Catholic verity and confound heresy. This faculty attributed to itself the power of deciding, in sovereign authority, whether a religious doctrine were true or false. Along with its decision the bishop and even the pope could exercise only a judiciary or coercive power: they could do nothing in a case but apply the penalty. The Pope could not rule in a matter of dogma (1) for he might well err by giving a theological reasoning in condemnation, and for that it was necessary to have recourse to the learning of which the assembled masters were the depositaries. An historian and partisan of the University, Charles Thurot, was able to say: “These pretensions were not illusory. Composed of the governors of all the orders, seculiers of all the nations, the Faculty of Theology of Paris embraced all who were accounted eminent theologians throughout Christendom. And in the Fourteenth Century it stood alone. No other was composed of so many distinguished members and doctors. All nations were admitted to the Sorbonne; all the religious orders were represented at Paris by the élite among their brothers. It did not seem that one could find elsewhere a tribunal more impartial and more enlightened.” ————————————- (1) I summarize here the conclusions of Charles Thurot, _De l’organization de l’enseignement dans l’université de Paris_, 1850.


In fact the doctors of theology reconciled with the obligation of defending orthodoxy the liberty of discussion and examination necessary to the growth of the spirit. The Faculty was the heart of the University of Paris, the teaching of the arts remained a preparation for theology. It was the intellectual glory of the University,, the cradle of all the great philosophers, of all the thinkers of the Middle Ages; of all those who went to take up at the Council of Bâle the struggle for the liberties of the French Church. The University had exercised, down through the centuries, this right of recognizing the heresies or opinions produced at Paris and in its environs. From the most remote districts the judgment of the University of Paris was appealed to in matters of faith. And, at this period the masters were preoccupied with the deeds of witchcraft which had been challenging the imagination for several years. In the midst of the numberless disorders that marked the first half of the Fifteenth Century, the University was the unique manifestation of intellectual opinion in France.

Gerson had spoken in its name for a general reform of the kingdom in 1405. It resisted the Pope, who levied tithes, and communicated increasingly with him; it reprimanded the King and combated the mendicant orders; it corresponded, after the death of the duc d’Orléans, with the dukes of Berry and Burgundy; it took the part of Jean Petit at the behest of the Duke of Burgundy, always in the name of reform. It revolted with the populace, in 1408, and Charles VI had to publish an order forbidding its members to stir up the people of Paris. It humbled the Provost, Guillaume de Thignonville. The King demanded that it excommunicate the duc d’Orléans; the Duke of Burgundy communicated to it his “secrets.” It approved of the Cabochien ordinance, then, after the rising, celebrated the benefits of the peace and condemned the proposals of Jean Petit; it pronounced itself in favor of the liberties of the French Church. But when the Burgundians entered Paris the University denied emphatically the acts of the five years preceding: the men who had held it in servitude had deceived the nation and corrupted the students! It became entirely Burgundian; Gerson and Machet had to flee. Pinched, and without resources, after the detestable murder of Jean Sans Peur whom it had sworn to avenge, the University delegated Pierre Cauchon to approve the Treaty of Troyes, to which it had adhered solemnly. It became English from that moment. It asked


Henry V to confirm its privileges in 1420; it recommended Pierre Cauchon for the See of Beauvais, “for he is a very prudent and very benign person, and a man of ‘grant clergie’.” It rendered thanks to Henry V when Meaux was seized; the union of the noble Kings of France and England, the two noble kingdoms and their good subjects, is exalted, as well as the love of peace. Especially it did not forget Bedford and the lettered Gloucester, who were its protectors. The University made pious offerings upon each English victory. It exulted over the announcement that Henry VI was coming to France to visit his kingdom (April, 1431).

In the month of December, 1431, a somewhat extraordinary scene took place in Paris where the little Henry VI made his impressive entry. It was one of the judges of Jeanne d’Arc, Nicolas Midi, who was charged to greet him in the name of the University. He expressed the University’s joy upon seeing that there shone in the infant King the excellent principles becoming to a monarch and to a Catholic Prince, that is to say, obedience to God and the Church, zeal for justice, the virtues of clemency and pity. Nicolas Midi saluted in Henry VI the father, the patron, the guardian, the special refuge of the University, who was his first born daughter, “orphan, or rather widow in his absence, since she did not then have her singular and special protector to lead her. He told of her sorrow, “asking audience of him, hoping the said Prince would treat her well and favorably, as had the king his predecessor.” And Nicolas Midi translated the dream, the utopia of the University men: this union of the two kingdoms, “which formerly were divided and in discord,” and presented the spectacle of wars, sedition, the ruin of churches, the diminution of faith. Let this good union be realized, by the Grace of God, and all evils would cease, as there was every reason to hope!

Such is what a member of the University came to say, in a compliment addressed to the English King, in presenting to him all his wishes for joyous accession, prayers for his health and the success of his enterprises, the offering of public prayers and preaching to the people!

To tell the truth, the University had suffered from the common misfortune of the time. In 1425, protesting before Martin V against the creation of new French universities, Alma Mater said that her members were dispersed and that her ancient glory had much diminished. Jean Gerson was living at Lyons in exile; other eminent University leaders,


since 1418, had fled to the court of Charles VII. Those who lived in Paris seemed, for the most part, Burgundian fanatics; we learn that they served, as others have, the master of the day. The domination of the English appeared almost to have been recognized by Charles VI himself. The Parliament and a great part of France had accepted and sworn to uphold the Treaty of Troyes. A marriage had sealed the legal union of the two kingdoms. The Pope himself could not have censured this opinion of the masters; and the Church had never intervened in what we shall call a change of government. The English were Christians and Catholics. They were to prove themselves, especially at the instigation of Bedford, very devoted sons of the Church and submissive to the Papacy. And, finally, we should speak advisedly of the decadence of the University. Its moral power was the same; the misfortunes of the time made it desirable that a single opinion be professed. Concerning Jeanne the opinion of the masters was, at that day, the only opinion.

The Maid was captured on the twenty-third of May, 1430, at six o’clock in the evening. This news did not reach Paris until the morning of the twenty-fifth or the twenty-sixth. The Secretary of the University wrote, in the name and under the seal of the Inquisitor of France, a summons to the Duke of Burgundy, to the end that Jeanne “vehemently suspected of many crimes implying heresy” be given up “according to law” by the procurator of the holy inquisition “to good counsel, favor and aid of the good doctors and masters of the University of Paris and other notable counselors being there.”

In the secret conferences of the University as much as in the councils of the English government, then, was born the idea of condemning Jeanne, this monster of pride, before a tribunal of the Church. It was a marvelous idea; the opinion of the University, unfavorable to the Maid, would have an extraordinary impression on the clergy, even upon those who favored Charles VII. The English, besides, with the Church trial, could assume a disinterested attitude.

The masters who had already claimed the Maid for the Duke of Burgundy were to claim her again for the Inquisitor of the Faith at Paris, or for his colleague, Pierre Cauchon. For, on the subject of Jeanne, the opinion of the members of the University had for a long time been unanimous. They were in part motivated by the fabulous anecdotes which had been current since her appearance. Besides, the esprit de corps desired the Parisian masters to hold as strongly suspect any person of the Armagnac party, especially those accredited by the


doctors of Chinon. The Parisians united in the reprobation of the Armagnacs, who had condemned the Burgundian propositions of Jean Petit.

Innocent tales, widely told through the Lorraine countryside, of “fairy trees” were accepted without verification and were distorted. A girl leading men-at-arms, dressed completely like a man, could not be other than depraved, a monster, a loose creature, like-the ribald dames who followed the armies.

Brother Richard had preached at Troyes that Jeanne knew the secrets of God, and that she could have an army enter into any city at all, and by any sort of means. He was a suspect personage, already disturbing to the University of Paris as a promoter of errors and of lying prophecies. He had had to flee Paris, having preached that the Antichrist was born, and announced the Day of Judgment for 1430,

When Jeanne had appeared before Paris, in the month of September, 1429, the Parisians did not doubt, following the. rumors easily noised about, that her partisans were going to exterminate them all; that the intention of King Charles VII was to plow the city under. While the Parisians were making a procession in honor of the Virgin, on the eve of her nativity, in contempt of the observance of religious fêtes -which would later be remembered by the University-Jeanne had made a fruitless attack on the city. They saw in this check a miracle of favor from the Virgin on behalf of the Burgundians. The credit of Jeanne fell, since she had failed: it was the Spirit of Evil that was leading her and not the Spirit of God. The question preoccupied the University masters then, for they composed and transcribed at that time an essay: De Bono et Maligno Spiritu.

The belief in Jeanne’s divine mission declined from that time. Bedford, writing to the King, represented her as a bloodhound of the Devil using enchantments and witchcraft. After the disastrous sortie of Compiègne, what must the masters at Paris have thought of Jeanne, prisoner, who had announced that she was sent of God to drive out of France all the enemies of her King? And the leap at Beaurevoir, was it not culpable temerity and mortal sin?

One must not forget this, if one wishes to see a little clearly into the obstinacy of the University theologians in prosecuting Jeanne; and one must keep it especially in mind in order to understand the range of their questions on the magical power of all the objects that belonged


to Jeanne, her standard, her sword, her rings; the insidious questions which were asked her as to the extent of her mission, and the matter, always strongly mysterious, of her intuitions and her voices.

The Maid had announced, in short, a mission which was imperfectly realized. The English were not driven from the kingdom of France; Charles, duc d’Orléans, remained captive in England; she herself had fallen into the hands of her enemies and had not escaped. The description of her visions, so precise, could seem fallacious and vague generalizations to men who were accustomed to study this subject, in the Légend dorée for example: In the recital of her audience with the King, it was evident that Jeanne had varied, and even that she was boasting. In all this the most forearmed theologians, like Beaupère, were inclined to see “more of natural cause and human intention than of supernatural cause.”

The University, as we have seen, intervened at the beginning of Jeanne’s trial; it was to intervene again in the course of the sessions. The nineteenth of May Pierre Cauchon declared in public sitting that the opinions of the doctors and masters should suffice to judge the case. But a month later for the greatest peace of the consciences and the edification of all, he made an appeal to the lights of the University, in particular to those of the Faculty of Theology and Law. And, on the fourteenth of May the University had informed the King of England that the Trial had been conducted wisely, righteously and reasonably by the eminent experts, men who had not spared trouble or time, nor had they taken any danger into consideration. All delay was very perilous, it was necessary to finish, to act rapidly, to lead an erring people back to holy doctrine. The day before, a letter had been sent to the Bishop by the members of the University in which the same sentiments were expressed. It was essential to drive ahead if they wished to prevent Jeanne from corrupting all the Western World.

The Faculty of Theology proved to be, naturally, the most vehement. There was in the deeds of Jeanne only wicked belief, dangerous lying, cruelty, presumption, idolatry, schism. The lawyers in giving their opinion (the gentlemen of the law are more prudent and shrewd) showed themselves to be unquestionably less affirmative on the substance and more moderate in form; for many colleagues of the Faculty of Law had declared (which did not seem to them very credible, however) that it


was necessary to reserve the hypothesis that Jeanne’s voices came to her from God. The lawyers then gave their opinions on this reservation. But it appeared to them that there was in Jeanne’s case evident schism, contradiction with the symbol of the apostles, apostasy, deceit, suspicion of heresy, boasting.

An important declaration of authority by which all those who would not have dared, or known how, to form an opinion were impressed, and which many assessors had only to restate. From that point on we see esprit de corps and discipline triumph.

But it ought to have been evident to these theologians that an evil spirit did not motivate this pious child, who had taken the garb of man only from necessity, to protect her virginity and to lead soldiers. Could they have expected her to reply in any but an inadequate way to questions concerning the Pope, the council, her submission, when they themselves were divided in such matters? Could they admit, those masters, that sixty-six articles of accusation which they said were taken from her own admissions were denied by Jeanne for the most part? Did they have to admit the mixture of the true and false, the fabrication of a pseudo-resumé of these accusations in which they had not even taken the trouble to come to an accurate agreement? Why did they not keep Jeanne in an ecclesiastical prison when the archbishopric had a room at Rouen for women under the supervision of women? Why did they suggest that they could not from such a distance seek the opinion of the Pope, since the messengers and ambassadors at the University went so frequently to Rome to see to the smallest matters concerning their colleagues and affairs of their benefices? Why had they taken this precaution of covering their judgment by the authority of the English government?

The University and the Council – The Pope of Rome and the Universal Church

The judges submitted their opinions (one might say a matter of form) to the judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the sacrosanct General Council.

This authority of the Pope, incidentally invoked (for it is always the Church, the prelate officers of Christ of whom Pierre Maurice will speak to Jeanne), the Maid will wish to invoke in her turn. She will say, she too, that she will rely upon the appeal to the Pope. But on that occasion


they will remind her that the Pope is very far away, and that the local priests are proper to judge the affairs of their diocese (May 24); and that such is, moreover, the strict inquisitorial rule.

But the judges were lying when they stated in their sentence: “Thou hast refused to submit thyself to Our Holy Father, the Pope, and to the Holy General Council.” They made the little King of England a liar in the circular letters written to the Emperor and to the kings of Christendom, which represented Jeanne as having spurned the judgment of our Holy Father, the Pope; in the circular letters to the prelates of France wherein it was said that Jeanne had “rejected” the judgment of the Pope and that of the Council (June, 1431).

Again, the authority of the Pope said to be denied by the Maid, was stated in advance in the letters which the University addressed to the Pope, to the Emperor, the College of Cardinals, documents in which Jeanne is definitely classed by the masters of the University as one of the ruck of superstitious women who had appeared in that time.

But in actual fact, what was the authority of a Pope in those days? Who was this Eugene IV who had just succeeded Martin V (who died the twentieth of February, 1431) precisely at the beginning of Jeanne’s trial, while Bishop Pierre Cauchon was assuring himself of the collaboration of the Inquisition?

My thoughts are often carried towards that city of Rome in the Middle Ages, the greatest city of Christendom, considering it in regard to its size and its history; one of the least, if one considers it in respect to its population and the number of its buildings that were in ruins. Rome, a throne in a desert. There are here only large and marvelous palaces, falling apart; vines and gardens tangled in their ruins. The cellars of these deserted palaces are the lairs of porcupines, badgers, hedgehogs and foxes. One can pick out from a distance the amphitheaters, the cupola of the Pantheon, the colossal horses, towers, their steeples, and that which dominates all and which bears the cross and which is the cynosure of Christian eyes, Saint Peter’s. And here is the dwelling of the Popes and there is the strong Castle of Saint Angelo, circular, like a donjon tower, which commands with its rocky mass the bridge over the Tiber which is the entrance to Rome for those who come from France, Spain, Germany, Bologna and Venice.


But Rome is no longer in Rome. The authority of the Church Universal has been carried away in the wandering council, where the masters of the University, the prelates of France, meet directly after trying Jeanne d’Arc. Their authority was the sole authority.

The Church scarcely likes one to recall this time of disorder, its revolutionary period. When the Council of Constance. came to an end (1418), three rival popes had been ejected from the seat of Saint Peter: the old pontifical monarchy, restored in the person of Martin V, had become a republic of clerics. Periodic councils were held regularly. The vicar of Christ was scarcely more than the will of the multitude. A Gerson could even go to the length of demanding that on the stone of every church be graven the pontifical promise to submit to the decrees of the Council. Martin V (this old Roman patrician of the Colonna family) could never do anything but temporize, evade or react secretly.

Firm and obstinate he appears, mitered and sleeping in his last sleep, on his magnificent tomb in Saint John the Lateran, and he had great need of rest, having worked so hard to pacify the factions of the Church and to repair its ruins, seeing to the Schismatics. As common father of the faithful, contemplating the anarchy of France, the savage English aggression, he was always disturbed about the meeting of these periodic synods where he had need to fear the audacity of orators and the violence of the French who were working for the proportional representation of nations, proposing financial measures which would have dried up all the streams of revenues of the Holy See. He also had to protect himself from the princely tyrants and from the Italian cities which would not shelter these conclaves except to live upon them and intrigue with them against him.

A program of reforms had been elaborated. A friar minor, Guillaume Josseaume, had preached at Sienna in 1419: “To the Church belongs the directing, the governing of the pope, to instruct him in all that touches the faith in all that is necessary to salvation.” A discourse that the delegation of France approved entirely. John of Ragusa at Sienna, the only representative of the University of Paris, awaited his acolytes of whom Jean Beaupère was one-he was to question the Maid-to achieve the triumph of reform. Where could the Pope go to find a wedge? To the Germans? To the Duke of Burgundy? And he had to reckon on the extraordinary appetite of Bedford. Could he himself attempt to realize


the program of the reformers, he who had such a horror of the multitude?

At the time when Jeanne appeared Martin V had, as we see, many worries; and, if he had any design, it must have been in a way of humbling the University, which, in March, 1429, had just imposed a retraction on Jean Sarrazin, friar minor, who had dared to state that the authority of a Pope alone could give a force of law to the decrees of the council. Preparations were being made for the general assizes of Christendom. The University was addressing itself to the head of the Empire to hasten the promised conclave. The chapter at Rouen was sounded by the University about contributing to its funds for the sending of an embassy to Rome (July, 1429). Baudribosc, Loiseleur and Basselet deliberated about it, personages whom we shall meet again among the judges of Jeanne d’Arc. Cardinal Beaufort of England was acting to the same end. The struggle came out into the open. On November 8, at the gates of the Colonna Palace, placards were raised declaring that the Pope and the Cardinals would be abettors of heresy if they did not open the council in the month of March following, and that they would proceed with the deposing of Martin V.

Although a cleric of Rome in the time of Martin V wrote, in 1428, a narrative very favorable to the Maid noting the progress of Jeanne’s mission, a little after the deliverance of Orléans, there is reason to believe that Martin V knew only by hearsay about her.

Jeanne’s trial began only a few days before his death. And we can only think that he could have refused little to the University that he feared so much (we know what favors one gains from the opposition). In fact between 1428 and 1429 Martin V authorized Bedford to levy new subsidies from the Norman clergy; more yet, in the serious question of the Hussites, which remained his care for so long, the Pope found himself thwarted in seeing a part of the army raised at his order to combat the heretics being used to wage war in France, and all on account of the Maid.

The third of March, 143r, by a conclave held in the monastery of the Minerva, a Venetian hermit, Gabriel Condolmario, otherwise known as Cardinal of Sienna, was elected Pope, and took the name of Eugene IV. An isolated man, dependent upon the cardinals, but otherwise affable, given to study, a fine manuscript copyist, disinterested and kindly but stubborn; such was the new Pope. Rome rose in rebellion under the Colonnas; Eugene IV fell ill; the meeting of the Council was


at hand; such were the events of the day when Jean Beaupère arrived, on the second of November, 1431, at Rome where he got a hundred gold florins. The old University master came to protest before the Pope of his own devotion, to affirm the necessity of the Council in the interests of the faith. He dwelt upon the Hussite peril, the immorality of the German clergy, the insecurity that existed in the environs of the Bastile. It is hardly probable that Beaupère spoke of Jeanne d’Arc to Eugene, any more than did Thomas de Courcelles, who acted in Rome on behalf of the University at the end of that same year, and who showed was himself always very discreet in the matter of the Trial.

Then one sees Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims, who accommodates himself well to Jeanne’s end, announce that he would take part in the Council of Bâle, and advise his canons of Reims to do likewise.

Finally, in the sad city beside the green river, the greatly anticipated Council opens, which will hear so many noisy voices, which will have so many happy memories for the secretaries of the Holy See, the very lettered and impious Italian humanists, whom Gloucester will protect, Aretino and Poggio; and the members of the Council crowd into the city sometimes in arms, returning from the hunt, or from some rich banquet enlivened with jests which served to dissipate the boredom which pervades this sad and monotonous visit. The president of this assembly will be Philibert de Montjeu, the worthy bishop of Coutances, he who gave his opinion with so much rigor on the subject of Jeanne, he the prelate completely devoted to Bedford, and whom we know to have undertaken a journey to the king’s council “for the profit and utility of the said country (Cotentin), for the expulsion of the brigands and enemies of the said lord (the regent, Bedford) who were in it.” One found finds here besides, Nicolas Lami, who had urged Parlement to intervene order on Bedford’s side “if by diabolic suggestion emanating from Pope Eugene the said Holy Council be dispersed”; and also Thomas de Courcelles. We see England and the University very much at home here. Bedford again makes excuses here for Louis de Luxembourg, prelate half English, half Picard; the Bishop of Noyon, Jean de Mailly, another judge of the Trial; and the most English of all, Pierre Cauchon, retained by grace of his functions as counselor of the English King. And the Pope believed it necessary to explain his actions to Bedford!

Where are we really, at Rouen or Bâle?


The victory of the men of the University was to be complete. In 1433, Eugene IV was called, on the threshold of the cathedral, “contumacious,” and his deposition was being considered. Total victory of the Council; an apparent victory, for Eugene wrote to the Doge of Venice, “We shall resign the tiara and renounce life, rather than be the cause through which the pontifical dignity shall be subordinated to the Council, contrary to all the canonical laws.” Deposed definitely in 1438, one may believe that he was thinking of these evil days when he wrote, “0 Gabriel, how much better it would have been for the salvation of thy soul had thou never become Pope nor Cardinal, but rather hadst thou died in the habit of thy monastery.” A pope then was a small matter. The universal church was the Council which had just restored unity.

And so it was these men of the Council, the University judges of Jeanne d’Arc, the French representing the National Church, who had all power of freeing or jailing. The University, the clergy of France, were this perpetual synod, always on the roads, in spite of dangers (Jean Beaupère knew something about it, for he was wounded and robbed by brigands); these prelates, always ready to produce notes upon notes, to preach harangues, considered themselves the Church Universal.

Adversaries or partisans of the Maid, they all were agreed upon this point.

For men such as Beaupère and Pierre Cauchon, who, as young clerics, had been present at and worked for the deposing of so many popes since Benedict XIII, one can only ask whether for them the title of Pope had any value left. It is Beaupère who will apply, in 1438, to Eugene TV, the words of Zechariah, XI:17: “Woe to the idolatrous shepherd that leadeth the flock! The sword shall be kept upon his arm, and upon his right eye; his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” And we could have believed that we saw these signs in the ill Eugene during the last year of his pontificate, and although he became somewhat better, according to a witness, many of these infirmities continued. In 1438, the Primate of Canterbury had to interrupt the abbé of Bonmont, traveling companion in England of Nicolas Loiseleur, who was referring to the Pope simply as “Eugene.” These University men were intoxicated with revolutionary logic, and with pride.


In the clash of nations these determined friends of peace, some, like the Parisian clerics, turn toward the past, toward scholastic formalism; and the others, the Rhenish and Italians, toward Humanism, the noble thoughts of Cicero’s Republic. Literate prelates wept over the death of Homer and Plato and dreamed of nothing but idylls, general reconciliation, conferences at which all races and nationalities would gather; in an epoch when war had exhausted the world, when central Europe was seeking what she has not even yet found-the limits of nationality when the Turks were invading Constantinople and Salonica, these religious were seeing as already realized their projects of perpetual peace among the children of the same Heavenly Father. In these circumstances soon tragic, they dreamed again the dream of Augustine, transposing in the real this City of God, the greatest book of the Middle Ages, with the Imitation, while the Barbarians were forcing the gates of the Empire.

Whether Jeanne D’Arc appealed to the Pope of Rome or the sacrosanct Council was a matter of small consequence.

The judges of the Trial deigned simply to inform the people of the final sentence. But it is scarcely credible that Rome could have had a thought differing from the opinion expressed by the University men, who were speaking, in themselves, to all intents and purposes, in the name of the Holy See. It is certain that Rome was burdened with too many other cares to be bothered about a prophetess; and it is scarcely probable that Jeanne’s appeal would have found there any echo, if it had been transmitted. Can one possibly suppose that, when one sees Eugene IV praising, with regard to Pierre Cauchon, the doctrines of the Masters of Paris?

Responsibility of Bishop Cauchon

The place where Jeanne was captured was part of the territory of Beauvais, of which Pierre Cauchon was then Bishop.

He was an important man, a very zealous Burgundian, entirely devoted to the English, who had even taken refuge with them at Rouen, having been driven from his diocese by the coming of the French. Moreover, this politician, this ambitious man, was the conservator of the privileges of the University of Paris, the protector and the solicitor of the corporation which had just denounced the Maid so harshly, circumstances which absolutely designated him to prosecute her trial. Moreover, as early as July 14, the University had indicated him as the King’s


choice. He was charged with forming a tribunal, and considering the consultations that Cauchon held with the bishops of Normandy, one may believe that he arranged it with art. The Inquisitor of the province, Jean Lemaistre, could not but cover with his authority the work of the Bishop of Beauvais. The provincial Inquisitor does not seem to have been enterprising; and he associated himself in this business with bad grace, by special command of the Grand Inquisitor of France; and even Cauchon covered himself with the authority of the Parisian University men. In their ranks Cauchon found his most zealous collaborators, and he even found critics who suggested that he was not working quickly enough! Their participation in the Trial was to be fatal to Jeanne. Ten Paris doctors of theology were to be called to the Trial and among them the most intolerant and remarkable of the Burgundian doctors, Jean Beaupère, Guillaume Erart, Nicolas Midi, and especially Thomas de Courcelles, an eloquent young man, learned, modest, with downcast looks, who was to become one of the lights of the Council of Bâle, and who may pass for the father of the celebrated liberty of the Gallic church. It is he whom Cauchon will employ in preference to all, and who will be the author of the definitive document of the Trial Record. Ambitious, violent and at the same time pliable, far-seeing, adept in all manner of diplomacy, Pierre Cauchon was a superior man, a partial man, and “dangerous,” as a lawyer of the Parlement of Paris is to say of him; so one must expect to find him a man rich in resourcefulness. Jeanne certainly was conscious of his occult rôle and of his great intelligence; she feared him: “I tell you, mind well what you pretend, you who are my judge,” (10th session). “Bishop, I die through you,” she will cry at the stake.

Cauchon had the extreme skill of preventing this trial in the matters of faith from appearing to be visibly motivated by politics. He had the strength to keep the English away from it; they were even to threaten him. He protects the University, which then complains of his want of diligence, for the University finds that he is delaying (November 21, 1430) and complains about it to the King of England. In Paris they could have tried Jeanne just as well, “for they had for that purpose a number of erudite and wise persons.” Cauchon will satisfy them by calling, on February 18, 1431, the Parisian masters who are working as the hirelings of the English sovereign. Afterwards he will send to Paris to


ask the solemn advice of the University on the subject of the articles of accusation. (April 29th, May 14th.) Alma Mater again asks the English King that an end be made to the Trial; she requires it of the Bishop also. The sentence passed by the University, which is read at Rouen on May 19th, is a death sentence for Jeanne.

Did it not serve a purpose for the English King to proclaim on June 18 that Jeanne was burnt at the stake so that her errors and wickedness should remain without imitators? Why try to protect the masters of the University before the Council and the Pope if they were not disturbed? The Trial had been conducted properly and canonically. And did the University have need of pointing out to Eugene IV Pierre Cauchon’s diligence in this affair? When he transfers Cauchon to the episcopal see at Lisieux, the Pope will employ in regard to him the habitual and lauditory formula: “Vade ac bonae famae tuae odor ex laudabilibus actibus tuis latius diffundatur” (January 19, 1432). The Pope will praise the doctrine of the masters of Paris and their zeal in conserving the purity of the light that burns in the House of the Lord; the river which flows from the springs of wisdom!

And remember that it was always the pontifical favor that pushed Pierre Cauchon ahead, notably to the See of Beauvais, where on October 7, 1420, the archdeacon, master Quentin d’Estrées, declared that the canons “were ready to obey the apostolic orders and to give thanks to the Most High for having procured for them so great a shepherd.” The bull of Martin V speaks of the “Honesty in habits, prudence in spiritual matters and facility in things temporal, and other gifts of many virtues clearly shown by the worthy witnesses of faith in the person of his very dear son, Pierre Cauchon.”

The Bishop made his entry into Beauvais January 12, 1421, accompanied by the Duke of Burgundy, the Bishop of Tournai, his chancellor, and the Bishop of Thérouanne and a large following of men-at-arms, and in this wise passed from the cathedral to his castle. The Burgundian power was installed there with him in that stronghold of a dwelling whose stones still stand. Jouvenal des Ursins, his successor, could not but remind King Charles of the loyalty and fidelity of the people of Beauvais. “And although they held your adversary for their lord, this was because the former lord bishop was in that foolish error; but they always were your servants at heart.” (Letter to the Estates of Orléans, 1440.)

Cauchon resided little at Beauvais, where he was not a strict reformer


of habits. Nothing justifies the favorable opinion that the Papacy nourished about him. He was chiefly active in the defense of his own interests and prerogatives. The Chapter renewed its warnings against concubines, “all those who, wearing the habit of the Church, maintain suspect women in their houses or elsewhere”; a measure which could not have had much effect, for the harlots, expelled from the houses of the men of religion, took up their abode not far off, and little by little they resumed their former common life.

Master Nicolas de Pacy, who was Cauchon’s prosecutor, was designated to the parish of Longvilliers. A singular procureur, this master Nicolas, who had a dispute with the archdeacon of Beauvais over a notorious woman, and a fight over her; he was later imprisoned “for various loosenesses.” Gilles de la Fosse, servant and secretary to Pierre Cauchon, was put in possession of the prebend made vacant by the death of Master Jean Cauchon, the Bishop’s brother.

The city of Beauvais was entirely in the hands of the Burgundian faction, and the captain in charge arrested a canon, Master Guillaume de la Beausse, “on the occasion of certain words, touching the event of the coming of the very illustrious lord, the Duke of Burgundy, and certain letters which the said prince had addressed to the inhabitants of the town.”

They had to take measures, also, against the canons who did not live in the canonical houses, and refused to keep them up. And the Bishop, who was never to be found in his official church residence, can scarcely be said to have set a good example for his subordinates.

Of the personages who were to play a rôle in Jeanne’s Trial we find many among the religious of Beauvais. In the month of September, 1426, a prebendary, Jean Bruillot, resigned in favor of Thomas Brébanchon, priest; Jean Beaupère contested the possession of a prebend with Eliot Martin, following a decree of the University of Paris; Nicolas Lami, master of arts and bachelor in theology, was put in possession of a prebend which Jean Chuffard had enjoyed (February 24, 1427).

All these persons, all the Parisian clerics introduced to the chapter by letters from the King of England or by Pierre Cauchon, were notorious Burgundians; and there were even among them partisans of the English domination.

Abuses, aggravations, the carrying of arms, stories of ravished girls,


and concubines, thefts, embezzlement of Church funds — the like was to be found in ecclesiastical life to some degree everywhere — at Beauvais, Paris, Rouen. This must be said because it was the truth. It must be said, for Jeanne was horrified at the women whom she would not have tolerated even among the soldiers; it must be said because, knowing this, we can better understand the mystic tendencies of a Gerson or a Clamanges, and the holiness that was so much a part of the feeling that grew around the Maid. There is scarcely anything more discouraging to read than a record of these criminal acts which make known to us, with all their secrets, the hearts of these religious, the disorders of the prebendaries of the times, which explains so well the favor of the common people that attached itself to the mystics and to the inspired.

Evil in habit, hard-bitten men avid of wealth, such were the religious and particularly the canons, of the period. And the common wretchedness seemed to have given more power than ever to money, and to these Burgundian coins especially, which were about the only ones in circulation in France.

How can one read the vigorous pages in which Jean Jouvenal des Ursins draws a picture of the clergy of his time, in a letter addressed to the Estates of Blois, in 1433, at the time when he had just succeeded Cauchon — by scarcely a month — as Bishop of Beauvais, without thinking that this good man is talking of his predecessor?

“Where are the archbishops, bishops, abbots and prelates and other men of the Church who will govern themselves in a manner of life that the Holy Council and canons have ordered? Where are the important prayers that they should make to God for the poor people, so that God may relieve the afflictions of the people and act through those who arc His communication? If there are groups, they will band themselves together and will find stronger divisions and get mixed up with finances, and desire to have large pensions from the King, while, by his means, they have great and notable benefices from which they ought to expend the revenues for the good of the public. Are they not forbidden the seven deadly sins? And very publicly many things are said of them: God grant that they may not be true!”

A large and majestic pillar in the primitive choir of the Cathedral of Beauvais rises behind the stall where Cauchon sat, carrying toward the light its heavy crowns of flowering acanthus. A grotesque figure in the likeness of a toad, a sort of menial with a large mouth and snub nose,


leans on its little arms; and on its back it carries the long column which rises so high.

This ugly figure, which an ancient carver seems to have wished to represent the sins and ugliness of the world, of our sad humanity, in fine, appears to me to be symbolic. I see it rising there from the place where sat enthroned that worldly man Pierre Cauchon. And my imagination, following the slender column which rises toward the light, wanders under the arches, in the flame of the stained-glass windows, on the road to Heaven and the angels.

A marvelous encounter! For Master Pierre Cauchon was anything but a churchman; he was the man of business, the man of ambition, the temporal man, the man of realities, of calculating schemes, of heavy finesse. One can scarcely see him as really careful about obtaining the crown of eternal glory which the University authorities had the audacity to propose for him as the reward of his pastoral zeal in the matter of Jeanne’s Trial! Pierre Cauchon lives among us forever. He is of those who are never visited by tenderness, intuition or loving kindness.

The Rôle of the Chapter at Rouen

It is now necessary for us to transport ourselves to the great business city of Rouen, to the choir of the immense cathedral, not far from the tomb of King Henry, brother of Richard Coeur de Lion; to the high church, still full of memories of the Anglo-Normans, which the English wished to make their sanctuary, just as they had made of the city an English bastile.

Rouen, through the care of Henry V, had become another London, with its palace along the banks of the Seine, its fortified bridge, its ancient chateaux enlarged by towers along the side facing the country, its innumerable alleys, its churches, monasteries and places of business. In the heart of the city, the cathedral was a world in itself with its vast cloister, its office establishment, its canonical houses. There, during the time when it had no bishop, the canons formed themselves into a sort of political parliament; for Bedford had arrived to put an end to the tyranny of the English; he had given merchant corporations in other Norman cities their liberties. And the canons, Normans and lawyers, conducted themselves there like petty kings. Pierre Cauchon lived very near them, at the establishment of Master Jean Rubé, like one of them. And Bedford, who liked to be in the choir during rituals wore the dress


of a canon. It was in Rouen that he died, September 14, 1435, asking -that he be interred in the sanctuary, at the right of the altar, under the shrine St. Sernin, at the feet of King Henry, with the brief and proud inscription: lohannes Dux Betfordi Normanniae Prorex.

Although two or three canons usually sufficed to instruct Rouen in matters of faith Pierre Cauchon called upon part of the Chapter of Rouen to judge Jeanne D’Arc (twenty-two assessors), a thing he could not have done without the consent of the rich and powerful Chapter — almost entirely newly manned since the English domination of Rouen and the cooperation of the government, thanks to regal rights.

All of the Norman holders of benefices proved to be men who were easily managed. These men were not rigorous fanatics (one of them, Jean Basset, the Official, was to get out of prison two clerics whom the English government had jailed for high treason). There were many among them as there were in every cathedral chapter who were lovers of books and letters, such as Jean Alespée, Guillaume Baudribosc, Nicolas Couppequesne, Guillaume du Désert, André Marguerie and Pierre Maurice. But there is a world of difference between a savant and a saint: Zanon de Castiglione, Bishop of Lisieux, Italian by birth, English at heart, but humanist above all, could formulate on the subject of Jeanne a judgment absolutely contemptuous.

These Norman clergy asked nothing but to be allowed to live at peace in their beautiful town houses at Rouen, among their books, with their money, in the midst of their families. Many of these men of the church were in reality appointed English functionaries, sitting in councils, supervising the royal finances, fulfilling special missions and embassies: such, for instance, were Raoul Roussel, Gilles de Duremort, Denis Gastinel, Loiseleur. Others were the intimates of Cauchon, charged by him with many missions, like Vendères, Caval, Thomas de Courcelles, and Pierre de Heuristic. They were held loyal by self-interest; and all were more or less seriously compromised in partnership with the English government, without perhaps, any serious convictions one way or another.

On the Chapter rests the responsibility for having granted jurisdiction, for although Jeanne was captured in his territory of Beauvais, Bishop Pierre Cauchon, a refugee at Rouen, could not have exercised jurisdiction without obtaining territorial authority. And, the See being vacant, the Chapter alone could authorize Pierre Cauchon to follow the procedure


decided on by the English. The Chapter had successfully resisted Cauchon when he had thundered out his censure at the time of the conflict which arose over the subject of tithes. It was not unusual for cathedral chapters to oppose the metropolitan, when insignificant interests were involved.

But, the twenty-eighth of December, 1430, the Chapter of Rouen received the request of the Bishop of Beauvais without any resistance! Then Bedford came to take rank among the canons. He flattered, astonished the Norman clergy by his pious endowments; and thanks to the droit de régale, the Chapter of Rouen was named in great part by the kings of England. An attenuated responsibility, more theoretic than real, then, rests upon the Chapter. For these same canons will be likewise deferential and faithful to Charles VII, but not until he comes to occupy Rouen.

These dignitaries, who detested the common people, can be recognized, it seems, in the complaint of a German cleric who wrote a little later about their kind. They have always, this rhymer says, the best horses, the softest beds, the loveliest women, gold in plenty, and the richest dwellings. “I cannot find where it is written that such things should be,” cries the poet who takes his sorrows to God.’ (1) But that was a condition that had been general for a century, in a time when the concentration of benefices in a few hands engendered simony and immorality.

Were the judges Threatened? Rôle of the English

These religious, these great teachers assembled there, had all the cowardliness characteristic of men deliberating in a group.

One cannot — without exaggeration — see anything in them but schismatics; it is without interest to know whether the Minors or the Benedictines are to show more zeal in pursuing Jeanne than the Dominicans. They were all submissive to the decisions of the University of which they were, for the most part, alumni; they obeyed their superiors. The theologians took refuge behind the sacrosanct opinions of their Faculty; the lawyers behaved in like manner; certain among them even avoided giving their opinion. The violent led the timid.

It pays us to ponder the rare deliberations that the d’Urfé manuscript has preserved for us; the assessors do not give their opinions; they echo

———————————— (1) Poem dated 1449. Cited by Edm. Vansteenberghe, Le Cardinal Nicolas de Cues.


certain extreme opinions, or that of the Bishop. In that they were the men, very ordinary men, that all trials and assemblies know; disciplined men known in every jurisdiction, in every corps; vulgar terrorists such as all troubled epochs produce.

We have already shown how the unanimous and deplorable opinion of the Parisian masters concerning Jeanne was formed. We may add here that these religious could believe any peace holy; that worship was then ruined by the war; that they were bewailing their desolated churches, their loss of benefices (witness Cauchon, the bishop without a See); that some of them cursed the war-like Jean Beaupère, whom brigands had robbed and left for dead between Beauvais and Paris in 1423.

A great part of conservative and order-loving France, the business and laboring classes, protected behind city walls, thought very much in the same way; and in agreement with them, too, were the mild, the intellectuals the diplomats, and certain of the clerics who surrounded Charles VII. The partisans and faithful followers of Jeanne were those who, through the war, had nothing to lose and everything to gain, such as the handsome duc D’Alençon, or Dunois, for example; the good country folk whose houses had been burned and whose cattle had been stolen, those whom Jouvenal des Ursins was to call “my people,” “my children.”

Were violent means brought to bear upon the trial judges? And by whom? By the Bishop, or by the English? The fact has long since been cited that the English appeared very little in the Trial. Bedford, the regent, seems at this time even to have given the government over to the Cardinal of Winchester; that was, however, nothing but a feint.

He was a very great politician, this John, Duke of Bedford, third son of Henry IV, husband of Anne, sister of Philip of Burgundy, and the best artisan in the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. In physique, a powerful man with a large frame, a big, broken nose, piercing eyes and a crown of hair cut cap-fashion.

He labored in France, in prosecuting the war and in trying to repair its evils; he endeavored to repress and prevent all signs of a national awakening, It was entirely due to Bedford that a part of France turned English. Pious, deferential to the clergy, Bedford was almost popular in Paris where the workmen were constantly repairing his hôtel, where the good people of the street marveled at the kindness of his pious wife.


Bedford had shown an extraordinary activity in putting Paris in a position of defense since July, 1429; he had turned away from their destination the English troops levied to fight against the Hussites; he had denounced Charles VII as using the help of a “woman of dissolute life” to abuse his people. After Jeanne’s fruitless assault upon Paris, Bedford went to Saint-Denis to chastise the inhabitants. His military and diplomatic initiative certainly caused Jeanne’s ruin. He was clever enough to keep the Duke of Burgundy, always tacking about in a system of truces, attached to his cause by ceding him the investiture of Champagne, by offering him a kind of regency over France. As for himself, he concentrated on the affairs of Normandy and he made of Rouen an English citadel, the capital of his government.

It was the English counsel of Bedford that designated Cauchon to demand Jeanne as a witch, and who furnished the ten thousand livres necessary for her purchase. Although Bedford appeared but a single time in the trial, and then in a singular attitude for a noble duke, and although he might seem to have passed the hand to Cardinal Beaufort, that violent and reactionary prelate, it is not to be doubted that Bedford personally conducted the whole business. One can recognize everywhere his powerful spirit: one discovers his creatures among the judges: Pasquier de Vaux, his chaplain; Jean Pinchon, who is to represent the Chapter of Rouen in his name; Jean Bruillot, who will harangue him so that he will not sacrifice the Chapter of Rouen and the Carmelites.

It is very evident that the hatred of the English was great enough to demand Jeanne’s death: before the walls of Orléans they had threatened to burn her at the stake. And when one sees the English government buy the Maid at a considerable price from the Burgundians, pay the expenses of the Trial; and on January 3, 1431, the English Royal Council write: “It is our intention to take and keep by us this said Jehanne, if so it be that she is not convicted [actainte] in this said case,” we have no doubt that the affair the English have motivated will be well conducted in their name.

They got her through their money. They guarded Jeanne rigorously in their castle at Rouen. At first in an iron cage, attached by the neck, feet and hands; then by handcuffs. When she was taken ill, they were afraid that she might die before the formal judgment; and when a guard attempted to do her violence, Warwick dismissed him. The chance of


her escaping before her trial was a great worry to them (this is understandable after her leap at Beauvrevoir and her refusal to take oath before the Bishop that she would not try to escape).

Canonically, legally, the affair was well in hand. “Farewell,” Cauchon said, after Jeanne had taken man’s attire again: a word said long before that, doubtless. Something that the English of Rouen did not understand in general: the Trial seemed to them much too long. They insulted Jeanne and believed that they would see her escape them, after her abjuration; they talked against Cauchon; they talked about all these churchmen as false, traitors and Armagnacs! (Deposition of Guillaume Manchon.)

But must we believe that the English threatened the members of the tribunal, as witnesses declared in the Procès de Rehabilitation? Yes, after the abjuration, when they were reproaching Cauchon as a weakling. Before that it is scarcely credible, except that English jailers assured Jeanne’s safe-keeping; she lived thus in a strictly secret place.

But the Bishop himself? Did he use pressure upon the court? Some of the witnesses at the Procès de Rehabilitation declared that he did (Massieu and Manchon); but their testimony appears to be somewhat exaggerated, and needs to be more closely verified.

Manchon, who did not have to face Cauchon at the Procès de Réhabilitation, attempted to give himself a fine rôle. He reported, for example, the experience of that religious, Jean Lohier, a solemn Norman cleric, who judged the Trial to be without value. Lohier had said this to the bishop and judged soundly that Jeanne, in making certain forms of affirmation in her statements concerning her visions, would certainly be lost; and Manchon believes that Lohier fled to the Court of Rome.

But Master Jean Lohier, doctor of Theology and Law, was sent, in the month of October, 1431, as ambassador of the University of Paris to the Pope, and he did not breathe a word of the business at Rouen. One finds him in Paris again in 1432 and 1433. On May 9th, he held trials at the apostolic palace. The University masters had not, then, held any bitterness toward him; and he had not, doubtless, had to flee Rouen, as Guillaume de la Chambre has said, for fear of being drowned. Manchon (with other witnesses who perhaps reproduced his testimony) assures us also that Nicolas de Houppeville, summoned to give his opinion of the Trial, refused to take part in it, and that he was, for that


action, in danger. Boisguillaume declares that he got out of Rouen; Guillaume de la Chambre says that they threatened to drown him.

But we have the witness of Nicolas de Houppeville himself, which cannot be suspect in this circumstance, On the very, fact, the original deposition is not in agreement with the official version: Houppeville did not take any part in the Trial, having been thrown out the second day for a remark made to Colles and reported to the Bishop that “it was dangerous to start that trial.” The latter respected his hatred, and made him acquainted, because of it, with the jails of Rouen.

In the editing of his second testimony, Houppeville varies: he had been present at certain deliberations and had courageously taken sides against Cauchon, declaring that those who wanted to take charge of the Trial were not Jeanne’s judges, but that that duty fell upon the clergy of Poiters and the Archbishop of Reims, Cauchon’s metropolitan.

This angered the Bishop, which he mentions. Houppeville maintains that he is responsible to the Official, and he goes before it. But when Houppeville has to appear before the Official, he is led off to the prison of the château. According to a letter that he wrote to Jean de la Fontaine, Houppeville thinks that it is because of the words that he said in giving his opinion of Jeanne’s trial that he is imprisoned. But he believes also that the opinions of Pierre Minier, Raoul Pigache, and Richard de Grouchet were not included in the Trial record.

What are we going to say concerning this witness prosecuted by Cauchon either in fact or in imagination: “and that said Trial was conducted by the said English, as he believes; but there were no threats or menaces, it seems to him, against the judges; they did according as they willed, especially the Bishop of Beauvais . He says that, in his opinion, the judges and the assesseurs were, for the most part, free to act; many others were afraid . .”

According to the word of Massieu, Manchon, and Ysambard de la Pierre, Jean de la Fontaine also had to escape from Rouen, under the threats of Cauchon, who had found him too partial to the accused. One sees that Jean de la Fontaine certainly left Rouen; but it was to go to Paris to seek at the University the decree of death for the Maid. He sat at the Trial until the end, and all that he did in Jeanne’s favor was to advise her submission to the Church.

Upon testimony of a more moderate judge at the Trial who certainly appears to be speaking the truth, certain of the English proceeded against her in hate; but the important persons acted in accordance with rectitude:


“Aliqui Anglici procedebant contra eam ex odis; sed notabiles viri procedebant bono animo.” (Deposition of André Marguerie.) These important men acted, proceeding with a good spirit. “Procedebant bono animo”: one of the most tragically human phrases that one can utter. Political passions and interests, above all else, divided the judges and the accused: they were sufficiently strong to blind them.

In the last analysis, Jeanne and her judges had a common faith; and it was for the variations of doctrine, inaccessible to the young girt of nineteen years, that they persecuted and condemned her so cruelly. They examined her like skeptics, psychiatrists, or sectarians. Although the good faith of the young girt was so evident, even in that which was erroneous in their eyes, they saw nothing but simulation, falsity.

Such severity would seem incomprehensible if we did not know the habits of the members of the clergy at that time. We can let one of them speak, the celebrated Jean Gerson. In his “Declaration summarizing the faults of Churchmen,” Gerson asks that a “good bishop, proven in work and doctrine, be elected, and not a carnal man, ignorant of things spiritual . that he will not reside outside the diocese . that the bishop will not, through avarice and ambition, attempt to live as the nobility . that he will not be absent from his church for more than three weeks What does it serve, what good can it do the Church, all this magnificence of princely glory, this superfluous pomp of prelates and cardinals, which makes them as if forgetful that they are men? And what an abomination it is that one holds two hundred, another three hundred, benefices! For that is the reason, is it not, that divine worship is diminished, churches impoverished and deprived of men of valor and teachers, and that evil examples are given to the faithful Why is it to-day necessary for a man, poorly educated, to enjoy four, five, six or eight benefices when he is not worthy of even one? And when those eight churches might maintain men devoted to doctrine, prayers and serving God? Consider whether it is more worthy that horses, dogs, birds and the superfluous entourage of the ecclesiastics of to-day should eat up the patrimony of the Church rather than Christ’s poor. Or instead of having it used to convert the infidels, and other good works . Why is it necessary for canons of cathedral churches, shod with spurs and wearing civilian dress, to reject entirely the habit of the Church and to carry lances? And even the bishops carry arms, abandoning books and surplices; and they fight with arms in the camps


like secular princes! . Now open your eyes and see whether the nuns’ cloisters of to-day are not like the lodges of courtesans; whether the sacred monasteries of canons differ from markets and shops; whether the cathedral churches have not become dens of thieves and rogues. See whether certain priests have not, under the pretext of having servants, adopted the custom of keeping concubines. Judge whether it is necessary to have so many images, and such a variety of paintings in the churches, and whether they do not lead simple folk into idolatry.”

The same complaints are made by Pierre D’Ailly, the author of “The State Corrupted, or the Ruin of the Church.” (1) The last philosopher of the Middle Ages, Nicolas de Cues, was to say, in a sermon on August 15th, 1432: “Alas, the Church to-day is fallen as low as possible . She is not clad in the sunlight of justice, prudence and good manners; but she is dressed rather, as in the skin of a beast, in the mantle of ignorance; she wallows in the mud of cupidity and debauchery, and her avarice chains her to the earth. . .

Heresy and Witchcraft in the Fifteenth Century

But it is not sufficient to establish that the trial was regularly conducted, to determine the responsibilities which rest upon the judges at Rouen. We must enter into some questions of theory and present in addition certain ideas necessary to those who wish to understand a serious reading of the Trial Record. Ile accusation of witchcraft appears to have little foundation; it is indeed, ridiculous. But at least it was early in general use.

The year 1431 is assigned to the fragment of the letter from the Duke of Bedford to King Henry VI which attributes the “great mischief” at Orléans to “the interlacing of false beliefs and crazy fears” that the English had had “of a disciple and hound of Satan, called the Maid, who made use of false enchantments and sorcery.” And on September 15th, 1429, an Abbé Villois said, “that in the said woman one may not have faith, and that those who believe in her are mad and suspect of heresy.” This panic terror of “incantations” of the Maid kept back at Sandwich and Dover English captains and soldiers who refused to embark (edict of May 3, 1430).

———————————— (1) Sometimes attributed to Nicolas de Clamanges.


One must not forget that it was in the Fifteenth Century, beyond a doubt, that belief in witchcraft reached its highest development.

The first rulings which condemned magic, those which derive from Frankish capitulaires, have a remarkable skepticism concerning the popular superstitions which speak of the nocturnal horseback riding of women under the guidance of Diana: the Devil inspires such women. In the Thirteenth Century, the rôle of demonology is affirmed in the extravagant writings of one Césaire d’Heisterbach: the Devil shows himself everywhere here on earth, taking the figure of a woman, a Negro, an ox or a dog. The Jews and the Moslems spread, along with astronomical science, similar beliefs throughout all Europe; and Saint Thomas states that to doubt magic is to go against the authority of sacred writings, otherwise so full of oriental beliefs.

Since magic is conditioned on the intervention of the Devil, and a pact is made between him and the sorcerer, it is an apostasy and implies heresy: it is judicable by the inquisition although the crime of witchcraft does not threaten the unity of the Church. In 1437, a friend of Jeanne’s judges, Jean Nider, prior of the Dominicans at Bâle, who burnt so many witches, wrote his Formicarium, a treatise on discipline which he had composed to direct the religious of his order in their investigations of heresy. The Vaudois were very rigorously pursued in 1440; they were, in popular sentiment, identified with sorcerers. Towards 1440 a theologian wrote a treatise against the “Errors of the Cathares, or those who ride broomsticks or wands.” Sorcerers and witches were burned at Provins (1452), at Evreux (1453), and many more were burned at Arras in 1459 and 1460, in the sad affair of the Vauderie.

To the theologians, poisoned as they were by this unhealthy literature of demonology, all that Jeanne attributed to God could equally be ascribed to the Devil. The greatest ruse of the Evil One is precisely the imitation of Jesus, the counterfeiting of His miracles. It is not necessary for the Devil to manifest himself in the likeness of a crow, a black cat, cock, dog or a hen of that hue, or of a hideous blackamoor with red lips; he can take the form of a young man, of a white child, of a handsome man dressed in parti-color white and red, of a beautiful young boy dressed in white who speaks softly and the sight of whom incites to sin. Ginifert has the figure of a child with a serene face wearing a white tunic. And one of the judges of the Maid, reading the lives


of the Fathers, remarked that the Devil could also take the form of an angel. The first gesture of sorcerers is the denial of God: that is why Jeanne’s judges insisted so much on her pretended oaths and frank language of the fields and camps. When the Sabbath dances began, the Devil directed them willingly, to the sound of the musette or tambourine. The sorceresses poisoned fountains; they healed those that were demented. And that is also why Jeanne’s judges took so much interest in the dances at the fountain in Domrémy. Finally, when the sorcerers are imprisoned, demons visit them in their jails, and make revelations and promises. It was thus the Devil visited Marguerite Coyffieur of Arvieux in prison: her eyes glowed like torches, and the jail was as bright as if the torches and candles were burning. And the Devil forbade Marguerite to reveal anything to the court; and as she had made some avowals, he struck her on the jaw and in the left eye: if she spoke she would be burned.’ The Devil offered to carry Peyronnelle, wife of Jean Césanne, out of the window far from the prison. It is the Devil, in fine, who breathes the spirit of despair into the souls of sorcerers. Thus Marguerite Daumas hanged herself. One Sunday night Jeannete George found herself in the tower of Avallon when she called her master, the Devil: “Art thou there? I give thee my body and my soul.” And the Devil replied to Jeannete, “Climb up the ladder.” And when she was on the platform, on the top of the tower, he said to her, “To horse, to horse!” But Jeannete was heard to cry in a loud voice, “I am dead!” There was great terror within the tower, which shook, while the wind blew violently outside. A prisoner testified to this when the inquisitor came into the prison. But at the foot of the tower Jeannete was found dead without any apparent hurt. The vice-governor of the Castle of Avallon so reported to the juge-mage of Grésivaudan in the year 1459. (1)

If we are to understand the bearing of the questions Jeanne’s judges asked her concerning her visions, and to know what they thought of the leap from the tower of Beaurevoir, we must keep the spirit of such scenes as the above in mind. How easy it was for them to formulate against Jeanne an accusation of witchcraft when popular belief in magic was so widespread as it was, among princes as well as among the common people. And in that country of woods and springs where the Maid was born, in a time when she was awaited to heal disease by the ———————————— (1) Jean Marx, L’Inquisition en Dauphinée, étude sur le développement de la repression de l’hérésie et de la sorcellerie du XIVième siècle au temps de François 1er. Paris, 1914.


laying on of hands, when people worshiped her as a saint, offering candles to her, asking her to perform miracles. We ourselves are troubled by the strength of her intuition, by her prevision of events.

A series of Norman documents proves to us that even in Rouen the Inquisition pursued several cases in matters of faith about the time of Jeanne’s trial.

In 1429, the Inquisitor receives nineteen books from the Chapter for things done “in certain cases of faith for the well-being and relief of the jurisdiction of the Church.” In 1431, scaffolds are erected at the entrance of the cathedral for Alis la Rousse and Cardine la Ferte. At that time, Jean le Galois, curé of Illois, undergoes a long imprisonment on bread and water, for having avowed belief in books of magic and having written some himself. In 1432, three prisoners, Jean Robert, Raoul Pellerin, and Jean le Fèvre, are denounced from the porch of Nôtre Dame; the Inquisitor is present at the trial of Nicolas de Buchy in matters of faith. In 1433, Maistre Jean de Villaines is excommunicated; in 1437, Folenfant is punished; in 1438, at Neufchâtel, Jeanne Vanerel, widow of Raoul le Clerc, a suspect in matters of faith and a sorceress, is denounced anew at the cemetery of Saint Ouen. A scaffold is erected in the entrance of the cathedral for Jeanne la Guillorée. Jeanne la Turquenne and Jeanne la Ponsetière are condemned as witches. In 1466, more scaffolds were built for the punishment of heretics, one a woman. In 1448, Guillaume Ernoullet, painter, was paid for making five heretic crowns for Guillemette Hasbouque, Étienne Blondel, Guillaume Pain, Robert Hequet and Jean Jean, detained in prison on matters of faith. Guillaume Lucas was prosecuted for appealing to a sorceress in the hope of recovering his health, and hanging about his person a garland of certain herbs picked on Saint John’s Eve, and uttering words which he could not afterwards remember. (1)

Such are the matters on which the Chapter of Rouen had to make decisions, as well as in the business of Jeanne d’Arc.

IV The Question of Inspiration and the Voices, Following the Contemporary Theologians

Jeanne was condemned at Rouen under two principal accusations. She was condemned because she declared her direct reliance upon God, and

——————————————————————— (1) Archives de la Seine-Infériéure, G.

because she said that God must be the first to be served; because she declared to the clerics, who represented before her the Church Militant, that she was in communication with the voices of Heaven, and that she expected to be freed directly by the Church Triumphant.

In the time of Jeanne D’Arc, the idea of Catholic unity, of the Church Universal, was infinitely dear to the heart of the clergy, that is, to all the people who were thinking, it was much more natural to them than the idea of patriotism, which is only an extension of individual feeling, and which was repugnant to these logicians, these Latinists, these theologians who had the same method, the same language, the same infinite and spiritual domain. This idea of unity appeared to be threatened in those days by the personality of the prophets who appeared on every hand, and also by the clash of the French and English nations. The more the Pontiff at Rome became self-effacing, the more the University theologians repeated: there is one Church One, Holy, Catholic which is led by the Holy Ghost, which never errs nor can ever be in fault. Every Catholic was held bound to obey it as a child obeys its mother, and he must submit to it his words and deeds. The inspired person had no right to withdraw himself from the judgment of the Church; the apostles themselves have obeyed it in their writings. Scripture, which reveals the word of God to us, commands our belief but through the intermediary of our Mother, the Church. She is the infallible rule which we must always remember. Outside of this rule there is but schism and division. Such is the teaching of Saint Paul.

And it is Jean de Châtillon, a former master of theology in the University of Paris, who solemnly calls this to poor Jeanne’s attention. For she has said, in the simplicity of her being, “I wait upon God, my Creator, in everything. I love Him with all my heart.” And, turning to her judges, she declared, “I wait upon my Judge: he is the King of Heaven and of earth.”

All these inspired ones, who insisted in believing in nothing except their own inner light, who did not submit themselves to the learning of specialists, were the objects of scandal to the theologians. The true Christian, the real devotee, is the man submissive to the authority of his superior. But Jeanne persisted in her opinion, she insisted, in these arduous matters of faith, in knowing more than the doctors and learned men, she, an untaught woman. She was obstinate in strange and new affirmations, without having taken the advice of prelates, of her curé, of churchmen. That, to say the least, is what they will use against her, and with what false grandiloquence! And Jeanne’s pride shocks judges infinitely more proud than she, for they claim to be obedient children, humble religious, who think like their teachers, as is their custom. When the judges have to consider the reality of Jeanne’s apparitions, since they do not discover the mark of humility that characterizes the true revelation, they say that these proceed only from her pride; Jeanne is inspired by devils. She is herself like an angel in revolt. On the judgment of these men, whose eyes are constantly on their superiors or staring at the floor, Jeanne expiates the crime of plain-speaking and of looking straight into the eyes of her adversaries.

The first article in the draft of twelve, the longest, the most important of the charges of the accusation, is entirely concerned with the question of the saints and inspiration. Here is the little that we know about them: For three or four years, from 1424 to 1428, Jeanne resisted the commands of the Voices which enjoined her to go seek Robert de Baudricourt, and to devote herself to France. These Voices, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, Jeanne recognized only when they told her who they were. Then Saint Michael appeared before her.

We know nothing of Margaret, who was born at Antioch, where her father, Theodosius, was a patriarch of the pagan religion. But her legend tells us that she was a noble young girl of marvelous beauty who was tending the sheep of her nursemaid when the prefect Olibrius saw her and desired her for his concubine. She preferred to die for Christ, who had died for her. She was tortured on the rack and lacerated by iron spikes; and the blood ran from her body as from a flowing spring. Led back to her prison she was visited by’ the Devil who appeared to her in the likeness of a dragon, and that of a young man. She was beheaded by the executioner.”

We know scarcely more of Catherine, daughter of the King Costius. She was instructed from childhood in the liberal arts, and debated against Maxence before the portals of the temple at Alexandria. But she was beautiful, eloquent and could refute the grammarians and orators. She took Christ for her love and like Margaret was beheaded.’

———————————— (1) Drouhet, Dictionnaire des légendes du Christianisme; Légende dorée, ed. Brunet; Petit de Julleville, Les Mystères.

These legendary lives have the original unreality of oriental tales. The mystery plays, in the representations given in the cathedral plazas, popularized them and made them live. Everyone at that time knew that an Olibrius was a tyrant, a brute. The statues in the churches, the miniatures in the missals, the figurines of the stained glass windows had put before every one’s eyes, in almost every hamlet, living likenesses of the lovely young women, Catherine and Margaret. A sister of Jeanne was named Catherine for the Saint, to whom the church of Maxey was dedicated.

There is something touching, significant, in the adoption by Christian people of these two saints and in the predilection Jeanne had for them. Margaret, that pearl, is chastity; Catherine is wisdom, the learning that conquers bestiality. Symbols full of meaning when one thinks of the crude desires of the men of that time, the idealization of the young girl, the woman, the wisdom which is learning united to beauty. That is what I understand in this delicate adoption; what Jeanne’s pious countrywomen must have understood, girls like the little Lorraine girls that I have met decorating the statues within the high chapels and ancient churches which ennoble their countryside.

Jeanne’s third spiritual guide was Saint Michael, whom God commanded to represent Him every time he wished to make a “great act of resistance.” Michael had fought the devils . a brilliant knight; and he receives the souls of the saints to conduct them into Paradise.

His second appearance is generally placed at Tombelaine. There was at Mont-Saint-Michel a very famous sanctuary that the English forbade anyone to visit. For Jeanne, the “resistance” was the great act of her life. Saint Michael, ambassador of God, was the good knight who guarded the Castle of the Mount against the English. He was the archangel, armed and fighting, who was represented on the standard of Charles, King of France.

But it is very evident that nothing of all this was premeditated on Jeanne’s part. These spiritual forces acted within her, not as images but as unconscious forces: Jeanne had moments of divination, of clairvoyance and ecstasy, such as great intelligences, the most normal and direct, the most refined and the most simple, have experienced. She did not name the Voices, moreover, until after her Saints told her their names.

This question of the Voices and Inspiration, has occupied — and from an early time — the theologians who decide on dogmas from century to century, whom the saints and the seers embarrass so often. For they have rules to discern the true from the false apparitions, to evaluate the divers degrees of certitude and revelation.

We must know these rules if we are to enter completely into the spirit of Jeanne’s judges. And the best thing to do, in this matter, is to follow, step by step, a treatise by Gerson. We are not concerned in this with a suspect, for we are dealing with the best educated man of his time, with the Chancellor of the University of Paris who had to flee the city when it became Burgundian. We are dealing with the man who consecrated his last activity to writing an extremely favorable mémoire of the Maid (May 14, 1429).

V Gerson’s Treatise on Revelations

We shall not try to translate, word for word, which would be too fastidious: we shall attempt to give only the essential parts of it, and to express the principal ideas. (1)

This treatise Gerson addressed in the form of a familiar letter to a certain Brother Célèstine who was his dearest friend. In this epistle he proposed to demonstrate, by a continuous metaphor, how the real coin of divine revelation can be distinguished from the counterfeit money of diabolic illusion, so that the Angel of Satan may not deceive us by representing himself as an Angel of light.

The theologian goes to the heart of the question in citing the revelation made by the Angel Gabriel to Zacharias on the subject of the Forerunner. It is precisely here that the curious investigator asks how one may know that the announcement of John’s name was an angelic deed rather than an illusion of the Devil.

It is necessary to distinguish the revelations of angels from these illusions; for just as the verity of our religion is combated by the disputatious arguments of heretics, so is the authority of true miracles and holy revelations diminished by the means of angels of deceit, by sophisticated feats and the prodigies of magicians. Gerson continues, following

(1) “Tractatus loannis Gersonii, doctoris et cancellarii parisiensis, de Distinctione Berardi visionum a falsis,” in the _Opera Omnia_, pub. by Ellies Dupin, Antwerp, 1706. Written between 1398 and 1401 Apropos of the canonization of Saint Brigit in 1415, Gerson wrote another treatise, “De Probatione Spiritum,” similar in, ideas.

this, that there is no general rule or method that we can give as a means of discerning always and infallibly the true revelation from the illusion. And it is more a matter of faith in our own prophets, and consequently in our entire religion, than it is of certitude and evidence.

Nevertheless, another question arises: Can we recognize that we are faithful believers? Following John’s doctrine, can we prove whether spirits are of God, so that we may not be deceived? (John IV, I.) This discussion, Gerson says, he has approached knowingly because so many illusions have been produced in his time and in that century.

On the subject of the coming of the Anti-Christ, for example, the world had behaved like a crazy old dodderer; and it had suffered from fantasies and illusions like those experienced in dreams. Many say “I am the Christ” and, far from being true they seduce, none the less, multitudes of the gullible, easily hypnotized by fables.

Gerson had heard many say that they knew for a certainty, by revelation, who was to be the future Pope; errors which had misled lettered and famous men, whose writings he had at hand. It was extraordinary to him to report that many persons of religion and of austere life had given credence to such evidence.

If anyone presents himself and declares that he has had a revelation like that of Zacharias, and those of other prophets, what are we to do? What shall be our line of conduct? If we deny it shortly, at once, if we make a mock of him or accuse him, it would seem, says Gerson, likely that we are weakening the authority of divine revelation, which is powerful to-day as formerly. We shall offend the simple, who will judge that our prophesies are but fantasies and illusions. We must, therefore, take an open attitude, in conformity with John’s text: It is not necessary to believe every spirit, but we must prove whether the spirits arc of God; and, obedient to the apostle, we must follow the good.

And so we become as spiritual treasurers and changers of money, dedicated to examining carefully and diligently the precious and strange coins of divine revelation. But this examiner of spiritual money must be a theologian experienced in his knowledge and in the usage of life, differing from those who never reach the consciousness of truth, such as the chatterers, the wordy, the imprudent, and the quarrelsome; or those who have more judgment in appreciating the appointments of the table, meats and wines, than aptitude in judging the matters that make demands upon the spirit and intelligence, and to whom all discourse upon the subject of religion seems fabulous or a burden. To such changers each new coin of divine revelation remains something unknown and foreign; they reject it with great laughs and indignation; and they make a mock of it and prefer accusation.

There are others (and says Gerson, I do not deny that they do not fall into a contrary vice) who ascribe as facts in the book of revelation all the dreams of the vainest of delirious men, the most superstitious and most extravagant illusions, the monstrous thoughts of sick and distempered minds. These believe with too easy a heart; the others show a spirit far too impracticable and harsh,

And so we must examine this spiritual money of revelation with five principal measures of evaluation: to wit: weight, flexibility, resistance, form, and color. Humility gives weight; discretion furnishes flexibility, patience indicates resistance; truth gives us the form, and charity the color. And the good logician develops, in taking them up, each one of these parts of his figure of speech.

The first sign to examine, then, is the conduct of the person who claims to be favored by God with apparitions. The man who, by proud curiosity or vain praise, or by presumption of holiness, desires to have unusual revelations and considers himself worthy of them; who takes delight through vainglory in such things as he tells of them, mark well: he merits being the sport of illusions. And Gerson recalls to us, in this connection, the examples to be found in the lives of the saints.

The Devil appeared to one of them, transfigured not only in the guise of an angel, but in the likeness of Christ; and he announced that he had appeared in the world to be seen of him and worshiped. This holy father remained thoughtful for a time, after the manner of the Virgin Mary, asking himself what to say to this greeting. He thought to himself: “Don’t I worship Christ every day? What does such a vision mean?” Taking refuge in humility, he said to the demon: “Go thou to him who sent thee for I am not worthy of seeing Christ here below.” Upon this humble answer, the demon went away, covered with confusion and shame.

Another father closed his eyes in a similar case: “I do not wish to see Christ upon earth,” he said: “I shall be content upon seeing Him in Heaven.”

And, too, Gerson points out, one must distinguish whether the revelation in question is useful for custom, the good of mankind, the honor and development of worship, or whether it relates to vain matters, to useless babbling. As in the history of the Gentiles, man can draw, without vain boasting, glories from his own deeds: as did Tullius and Scipio Africanus.

This weight of humility we find in Zacharias, who stood like one amazed upon seeing the angel, and refused to believe his annunciation. But we must add, as Saint Gregory said in his Dialogues, that “This true humility may not be obstinate, but submissive and in awe.” Certainly also, it is not humility but the sign of proud self-esteem, when a person, in alleging his humility, scorns the prelate who is informing himself in such an arduous case. He would not act like that if he were not learned in his own eyes, if he did not rely upon his own prudence, if he were not ready to believe in his own sense and upon his own council rather than upon the judgment of his superior.

The second sign which distinguishes the true spiritual person is discretion: daughter of humility, that is, the readiness to listen to a counselor. For there are people whom it pleases to be governed by their own feelings, and who act according to their own devising. It is the most dangerous Director who leads them, or really it is their own opinions that drive them. They grow dangerously thin by fasting, they prolong their, vigils in exaggerated ways, they trouble themselves with too copious weeping and wear themselves out in hysteria. They do not believe anyone’s warnings; they will not be advised to live in a more moderate fashion; they do not bother to listen to people learned in divine law; they scorn all counsel. Such people the author pronounces as being the prey of illusions of the Devil; and one must hold suspect all that they say in unusual revelations.

Gerson cites the instance of the married woman he had just encountered at Arras. This woman sometimes went from two to four days without taking nourishment and naturally she was held by many to be a wonder. The interested theologian had spoken with her, and he was not long in finding out that this abstinence was not sobriety, but simply a case of vain and superb obstinacy; for, after such a fast, exhausted by hunger, the woman ate with an unbelievable voracity. Upon which Gerson had asked her how, in these conditions, without taking anyone’s advice, she had followed an abstinence such as the most saintly and the strongest had not observed. She replied by indirection that lacked all humility; whereupon the theologian admonished her, explaining to her that this mania for fasting was nothing but a singular folly, that she was displeasing to her husband, and that the hunger that followed the fasting was the punishment exacted of her.

And Gerson attacked in his time all the excesses in abstinence which led to incurable maladies, such as brain lesions and mental troubles; and he ascribed many visions to these mental maladies; the books on medicine were full of examples of them, he declared. He noted the manias and remarked that he had encountered many people who appeared to have good judgment about most things but who were demented in certain other circumstances: such were they who delved in the magic arts. Gerson’s third attribute of the real spiritual coin is patience: a quality which is extremely difficult to evaluate for obstinacy often simulates it

The fourth attribute is truth, which gives the configuration and legitimate inscription to the coin. The Scriptures are the place, the treasury where reposes the royal die of spiritual money. If a coin differs in form and inscription from the King’s die, without any doubt it is false. Nevertheless, it can come about that the resemblance of the false money to the true is such that the counterfeit can be determined only by the most learned men. It is necessary therefore to seek what are the conditions of the true revelations.

Gerson’s first condition: That no angel, saint or prophet predicts any future event that does not transpire, precisely in the sense he and the Holy Spirit understood it; otherwise it occurs through the response of devils; for they deceive and are deceived. If you reply in spirit: “How can I know whether it is God who is speaking?” here is the answer: “You shall have this sign: if a prophet has announced something in the name of God, and it cannot be realized, it is not God who has spoken; you are concerned with an invention of the prophet and of his spirit of arrogance.”

Second condition: If that which a prophet or an angel has predicted does not happen word for word, the inspired will receive a revelation from the Holy Spirit to understand whether this announcement is to be understood conditionally, mystically or literally. This the author calls appealing to or questioning God, or soundly informing the mind.

Third condition: the holy angels and true prophets do not announce anything contrary to good customs and the true faith.

Fourth condition: Revelation which goes counter to good habits, without the very clear intervention of an order or dispensation of God, is not to be listened to. Here the author enters in great detail into this very necessary gift which the Apostle calls “discernment of spirit.” This sense acts in the manner of a mysterious perfume, of an illumination, as an experience by which we distinguish the true revelations from deceptive illusions.

In this connection Gerson cites examples taken from Saint Bernard and from Christ Himself; since He proves that a virtue emanated from Him when he healed the woman by the touch of His raiment; and Saint Augustine tells also in his Confessions that he had discerned the presence of his mother among the true and false visions of a night’s sleep. However, it is impossible to lay down a general rule; it is necessary to examine each case by itself. Similar difficulties, almost insurmountable, are encountered by anyone who tries to distinguish absolutely the states of vigil and those of sleep. Experience is not sufficient; and all that one can say of the matter is “I know it for certain.”

It is therefore necessary to show ourselves prudent in such matters and to come back, in fine, to the only light which we possess, which is that of humility. Let us trample under foot our pride, our vainglory, this monster horrible and immense which is always reborn with a new force when one pursues it, as in the case of fabulous Antaeus, or with the hydra head of poet’s legend.

And in the case of a miracle, examination is just as necessary for the good and verity of the faith: a useless miracle is to be held suspect. And so we can judge as sacrilege the prestidigitations of magicians, and those who make Christ fly through the air.

Gerson’s fifth sign, and last, of the spiritual coin is charity, or divine love. It is that which gives the golden color to the coin. But this sign may not be sufficient in all circumstances, for this color is disguised by that of carnal love.

This has been found to be true especially among women who have shown toward God and the saints a love which was inspired more by vice than by true, sincere holy love. Concerning this, Gerson criticizes the pretensions of these pious women who live in familiarity with holy men, and the book of Marie de Valenciennes. For love must begin in the spirit and be consummated by the body: thus these women thought to enjoy God, while their passions were so tar from holy. And Gerson brings his thoughts to a close in these terms:

The greatest danger in these matters is to refer them to one’s own sense; for if the spirit of presumption slips into us, mistaken vanity can easily take possession of us. The temptation is to be led to a desperate feeling in seeing that we cannot arrive at certainty on the subject of holy revelations. Well, there is a certainty; but in the divine light, not in the human. It is in raising our aspirations very high that we can catch a glimpse of it.

In brief, if we happen to be judges of the spiritual coins of revelations, let us, says Gerson, attach ourselves to God and His Holy Scriptures; let us not be hastened in passing judgment, especially whether there is falsehood, or folly joined with falsehood. Such is the rule that permits us to prove the good spiritual money.

This promenade into the country of theology is not pleasant. Our companion, a logician of great spiritual soundness, leads us in this labyrinth as in a suite of small cloisters where there is little light, where one can scarcely see one’s way. But the ideas expressed in this treatise are so far from our thoughts, deduced in so special a manner, that we ought to know them in the only form in which they were produced. Is that to say that we can find in them sufficient reasons for excusing the judges of Rouen? We can at least recognize certain motifs which were able to determine them from the moment that their self-interest urged them in this.

As far as the Bishop is concerned, I do not believe that he could enter for a single moment into these considerations. He was a man of very cold nature, ambitious, a material man; to judge him even by the features that his tomb presents to us, a man of the flesh and coarse. He was such a good functionary of the English government that he had visited in their country and could probably speak their language: “Farewell,” he was to say when Jeanne’s cause was decisively lost.

And when the Bishop builds, at Lisieux, a delightful chapel in honor of the Virgin, he appears to us as a man more ostentatious than pious. And, too, he seems to be attached to his province. Perhaps at that time he turned back upon himself, disillusioned, feeling that he had failed in life, for the Bishop of Beauvais was never to become Archbishop of Rouen.

But the excuse in the field of theory which we cannot find for Cauchon we can perhaps accord to the Parisian theologians, to all this University family, this corporation of learning in which master and scholar have labored together, and collaborated; where there were debts of gratitude, examinations prepared in common, as was the case with many of the judges of Jeanne d’Arc; where was to be found, in a word, a real companionship . an esprit de corps.

When Jean Beaupère, the most learned of these Paris doctors, was questioned at the time of the Rehabilitation, it was remarkable to note that he did not retract: the professor maintained that “he had and still has a strong conjecture that the said apparitions were more from a natural cause and human intention than from a cause outside nature.” When the judge spoke to him of Jeanne’s innocence, Beaupère declared oh! he did intend to imply “corruption of body,” but rather “that she was very subtle, with the subtlety appertaining to woman.” And that was all that could be drawn out of him.

It is not difficult to see that Beaupère remains always the representative of the theologians who advocate distrusting visions, that he maintained the unfavorable opinion, so common in his time among the religious, and which is still rife among us, relative to the feminine sex and its innate malice.

X (Sic) War in the Time of Jeanne d’Arc

It is now time to get a little air, to look about the camps and the countryside. It is time to leave the morose clerics to their speculations, shut up in their rooms, and to consider the companions in war, with their bronzed faces, highly encased in mail and with their hair cut cap-fashion, men who carry for banners the fleur-de-lis, the cross of Saint Andrew or the leopards.

At the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, France was still, as much as Italy, one of the most civilized kingdoms in all Christendom. Business flourished there; people amused themselves; the arts were flourishing and manners were as amiable as they were easy. The quarrel between Orléans and Burgundy saw the end of this gentle splendor. The parties competed for the English mercenaries with their money resources. These latter were tempted to substitute themselves for the French government, and to conquer the country.

This was precisely the opportunity that King Henry V took advantage off: a hard man, dominating, harsh, unscrupulous, mystic and realist, who had prepared with care the conquest of a peaceful and joyous kingdom. Of great piety, sincere or feigned, very brave, Henry V conducted himself as a justice, a reformer of French manners, fulfilling the secret design of God. King Henry was a great Englishman; and his life seems to have been a crusade against France. It is not thanks to him that the French are not English to-day. We must say something of this war in which Jeanne played so great a role, and of the causes which led to checking the English. The great army of 1415, united at Portsmouth, was not larger than 10,000 men (2,500 men-at-arms, 7,000 archers, 120 miners and 75 cannoneers according to the largest estimates). At Agincourt, Henry V led in combat not more than 900 lancers and 3,000 archers. At Verneuil, the English numbered 2,000 or 3,000 men (this was the bloodiest encounter of the time). At the moment of their greatest power, before Orleans, the English army in 1428 numbered approximately 5,000 men (1,000 lancers and 4,000 archers). In 1417, the royal navy comprised sixteen vessels and carracks, eight barges and ten whalers. (The carrack was of five hundred tons cargo and a crew of eighty-eight sailors; the barge, one hundred and forty tons and thirty-eight sailors; the whaler, a little more or less.)

As for Jeanne, she commanded an army of 12,000 to 14,000 men. A very large army for that time. France did not lack men, and there were many valorous Scotsmen as mercenaries. The most difficult thing was to create a war treasury large enough to pay them. It was impossible to put knighthood on foot and lead it into battle, among the lancers, pikemen and crossbowmen. Guerrilla warfare was always difficult for the French. And before the coming of Jeanne — we have Dunois’ word for it — 200 English could put to flight 800 French, so great was their prestige.

After the general encounters wherein the country’s soldiery and the flower of chivalry perished (which happened three times during the Hundred Years’ War) the war proceeded at a slow, infallible pace and took on the character of a military occupation, a spreading government. It took on the monotonous aspect of trench warfare.

Not that trenches were dug in the terrain of France to defend positions foot by foot. But France at that time was covered with castles, fortresses which were veritable redoubts, commanding the traffic of rivers and valleys, having a view necessary for men-at-arms to hold an ambush, to make a sortie, to reconnoiter the plain, to ride down and recapture territory. Each fair town had its girdle of walls, oftentimes double and triple. These defenses were carefully planned with a view to sieges and were repaired when necessary at the joint expense of the people and the Church. When the alarm was given the citizens, even the canons themselves, mounted guard at the ramparts. Moats filled with water were a serious obstacle to all who attempted to make an assault upon the fortress. A few defenders were enough to hold these places which were all but impregnable. About the castle, commanded by a captain paid by the town, were placed a few hundred crossbowmen, archers and a small number of artillery pieces, culverins, veuglaires, and crapaudaux, from which has evolved our trench mortar.

To capture these places politics and bribes were more effective than force. In general, one bought the captain of the town, who was easy to corrupt and entirely mercenary; or else towns were captured by famine. Iron and stone cannon balls had little effect on those great piles of masonry, and their ricochet was not damaging. It was necessary to dig mines and to set off explosives under these great towers and heavy walls which then tumbled down like card-castles. The workmen of the north, men of Hainault, were particularly formidable in playing with mines.

But more frequently towns were taken by means of famine, the cruel siege which imprisoned the people. They could not leave to work their fields, to sow or reap their grain or cultivate their vineyards. Cities were surrounded by a military city made of fortifications, with wooden and stone towers called bastilles. A very costly proceeding, very complicated — not very effective, in the opinion of a youth of the time, Jean de Beuil, who was later to become a marshal of France. That is what the English did at Orleans and it was not a great success.

These long years of war in which the French had to do a great part of the work before Martinmas in Winter, before Saint John’s Day, before Spring were years of constant distress. An abiding terror had conquered the land. The end of the world seemed near.

To wage this long war it was not necessary to have a large body of men under arms. A few knights did police and scout duty, riding out from the château to run down the enemy, as the gendarmes of South Algeria do in subduing native bands. The laborer suffered all the evils of this kind of warfare: his cattle were stolen, his cottage was burned. The encounters of any importance were extremely rare, and the mercenaries of both nations had a “certain small custom” among themselves, and took the opportunity of making “good livings” together; the thrifty peasant was always the victim of their raiding. The delay in large operations and their considerable expense were discouraging; discouraging also were the assaults on a town or castle, which had to be repeated many times before the enemy could be broken of their stubborn resistance. And they could then establish themselves in another stronghold and it would all have to be done over again.

That is the kind of war that was being waged in the time of Jeanne d’Arc. It was very disagreeable; it was neither brilliant nor chivalrous.

Upon the urging of the Duc d’Alençon, a youth enthusiastic to the point of folly, Jeanne undertook the use of the small cannons which sowed panic among the knights, and which, aimed by skilled gunners, had sometimes surprising results at short distances. As at Orleans, when a lucky shot decapitated the Earl of Salisbury while he was making a reconnaissance.

But Jeanne’s characteristic method, which she used intuitively, was the charge: to lead the attack. And the soldiers and plain folk understood her. How intrepid and French she was in that! And also, how easy it was to upset the plans and calculations of the timid! Everywhere at once, Jeanne was in the van: at the bastille of Orléans, where she scaled the ladder; at Jargeau, where she was knocked down by a stone and got up crying, “Friends, friends, upon them! Our Lord has condemned the English. Now we have them! Be brave!” And on the fortifications of Paris, where the Anglo-Burgundians jibed at the French, calling Jeanne a cowherd and a harlot. She scarcely noticed a wound. Jeanne was wounded in the foot and shoulder at Orléans, in the thigh at Paris. She could not be made to stay quiet.

Jeanne was especially the heroine of the siege of Orléans, which was a little later made a pompous and military mystery; she became the “miracle of Orléans” just as with us there was the “miracle of the Marne”; but there never was a miracle in war. For so long as wars shall last, a long time still, alas! the victors of a day and the politicians will not be able to subdue a people who must live, who will not submit to slavery.

The English had occupied Normandy with the intention of perpetual domination. They had wiped out the loyal nobles, and persecuted the ‘plain people, in very much the way the Germans held Belgium in subjection. In Picardy they had tried, with Burgundian aid, an alliance with the nobles of the country. More than from its formidable enemy, France suffered from her own dissensions. Thanks to her internal dissensions, also, England, in her turn, was to succumb under the feuds of the Duke of Gloucester with the Duke of Burgundy and the Bishop of Winchester. And, at Orléans, the Duke of Burgundy hesitated, and did not send troops. The work of reconciliation among the French parties and provinces, this “French friendship” of which Napoleon emphasized the importance on the municipal register at Orleans, was consummated in the Treaty of Arras, a peace which has been held the great victory won by prelates and lawyers, but it was prepared by the soldiers. Another cause, and an important one, too, in checking the English occupation of the country was their lack of money. In spite of the ransoms of Rouen and Meaux, in spite of his victories, Henry V was heavily in debt to the day of his death: not enough, of course, to ruin a city like London, but the ambassadors, captains of towns, soldiers and sailors were constantly without money; and they tarried in France without enthusiasm.

The bill for Agincourt was not yet paid when its conqueror died. And the gentlemen “lodged” in Normandy wrote home: “No money, and foraging is forbidden!” The Duke of Exeter, the great marshal, and Hungerford did not receive their wages for Agincourt until the reign of Henry VI. The government owed the Earl of Huntingdon, made prisoner at Baugé, 8,157 livres for his services; on default of payment, he was kept in prison in France.

This embarrassment of the English treasury was a permanent cause of weakness. And although the treasury of King Charles, “King of Bourges” was not better equipped, he waged war for his cause, in spite of his laziness and lack of resolution, rich in another endless treasure, the fidelity of his oppressed people.

VII (Sic) The Idea of Patrie in the Time of Jeanne d’Arc

We have seen that Henry V came into France to punish her for her sins: it would be more accurate to say that he came to chastise her for her improvidence. This pious lie, developed by the Duc d’Orléans in the celebrated _Complainte de la France_ in which he represented France kneeling before the cross, beside the Virgin, is in conformity with Christian tradition. As for the lawyers, they disseminated another version: that of legal right to conquest. John Talbot, the “watchdog of England,” that model of courtliness and courage, in the book in French which he presented to Queen Margaret so that she would not forget her country’s language, included a genealogical table to prove the legal position. In it there was a picture formed of a series of portraits placed within circular medallions, one below another. The relationships of this genealogical tree begins with Saint Louis and divides in two lines: one descending from Isabelle de France, daughter of Philippe le Bel, the House of Lancaster; the other traces the line of the Valois to Charles VI and his daughter Catherine. The two lines meet at that point, in the marriage of Catherine and Henry V, and result, in the person of Henry VI, in a double heritage from Saint Louis.

Such pictures could be exhibited in churches and other public places. They delighted only the jurists, however, and the Burgundian chroniclers. The French people thought that Charles VII and his cousins, Orléans and Bourbon, had been omitted, just as they had been in the Treaty of Troyes. As for the nobles and the warriors who lived by conflict, it was a good gamble.

The bloody struggles were the opportunity for the fine “proof at arms” in which they could test their valor. One wins; the other loses. The king who loses the battle suffers no reproach: it is honor enough, and sufficient in itself, to have fought the enemy with boldness. If one always won the fight the war would soon be over. Preserving one’s honor was the essential. Kings, ladies, princes and other great lords, who were judges of worldly honor were quick to say to whom the honors belonged; to correct the injustice of assaults, battles, sieges and tourneys.

It was not I the same for the ordinary folk of the countryside and the resolute companions-in-arms we find grouped around the Maid. And when the war in its ferocity saw the burning of chapels and of whole villages; when the ecclesiastics had to give up the thought of getting tithes, opinion changed.

It is a beautiful thing that this idea of patrie should have been born in a country trampled under foreign feet, rather than from the bloodless books of jurists and savants. Beautiful ladies, fine hunts, and the “great deeds of valiant King Arthur,” “French victories,” were the things that these nobles, the Trojans of the Middle Ages, had in mind. But Jeanne was to say to them (in her letter to the English) “Render to the Maid . who is sent here of God, the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns which you have taken and violated in France . . ‘ “

The word “patrie” did not exist in the time of Jeanne d’Arc. (1) Patria, the word of the scholar, meant country, place of origin; by extension it could sometimes mean patrie, in the sense in which we use the word, but very rarely did it have that connotation.

In the feudal world what we understand by patrie, was always connected with the idea of feudal sovereignty; and the concept of sovereignty was always linked to the idea of justice. The people of Vaucouleurs, for instance, were “people of the King’s chamber,” that is, responsible to him. The king remained their overlord and defender, the people’s liberator, the one surpassing appeal above the ties of vassalage.

It is around this idea of paternal justice that we must look to discern the outlines of the modern idea of “country.” In the name of justice, Jeanne protested against the foreign invasion; it was in the name of an ancient loyalty that the simple folk of the countryside revolted against the foreigners, everywhere to some extent, even in Normandy.

One may see, in this province, by the series of letters of donation, that only a part of the nobility and upper bourgeoisie and the higher clergy accepted the English domination: these people had taken the “certificates of loyalty” by means of which they obtained the restitution of their property.

But by the letters of remission, which brought the common people

———————————— (1) The most ancient example of its use goes back only to 1544. Cf. Antoine Thomas, Revue des idles, PP. 555-559.

of the countryside and the towns into the scene, we are ‘ a – able to realize that the poorer classes lived in terror of the English men-at-arms and also of the partisans of France, for they were crushed by the pillaging of the leaders of roving bands. For these laborers, despoiled of their horses, beaten and taken for guides by the soldiers, terrorized by these groups of five or six horsemen appearing in the village; these wretched people, who knew neither security nor rest, remained none the less loyal at heart in the province that was most English.

Such was the poor man of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive who, while drinking in an inn at Bayeux with an English herald-at-arms whose standing he did not know, made the imprudent wish: “May God protect the crown of France and give long life to the Duc d’Alençon and peace to us all! (1424.) Such also was the unfortunate tailor of Nôtre Dame de Cenilly who at Coutances, one market day, having drunk more than a little, declared to the English soldiers at one of the city gates that he preferred King Charles to King Henry.

And the poor citizen of Rugles, who picked a quarrel with the sergeant of the forest of Breteuil, shouting to him: “I think times will change very soon, and you gentlemen, officers of the king of England, won’t have such a big audience.” (1425.) And for Robin Le Peletier of Valognes, Bedford “was nothing but a wine-bibber pure and simple, who was good for nothing but taking towns and levying taxes and consuming the people and did not try to put out of his kingdom our enemies and adversaries”; as for Suffolk, he considered him a “murderer of populations.”

It is not always easy to know what a peasant thinks, and especially a Norman peasant. In these letters of remission that enable us to know them, documents in which the chancellory of King Henry presents them, the peasants of Normandy are naturally seen in a very humble and supplicating attitude. But can one believe that they acted always, as was officially said, through terror of “brigands,” that is, groups rebellious against the English power? Were they not often in sympathy with them?

Was it always through constraint that the peasants ferried the brigands across rivers, accompanied them in their reconnoiterings, procured food for them, bought horses for them, bridled and saddled, and stole on their account? In one place a barber goes to take care of the wounded in a forest; in another, the wounded are taken in and hidden. There was treason to the English everywhere, even in Rouen itself.

A hole was made in the wall of a house adjoining the church of Saint-Gervaise de Sees, a breach by which the French were able to penetrate into the fortress by night (1427). A Jacobin formed a conspiracy at Argentan (1431). Rouen was nearly overthrown in 1432.

In the countryside an Englishman who was without a guide would be put to death. Peasants found one along the road, near the wood of Baugy, stretched out naked, robbed of his clothes: everything had been taken, including his horse. And two Englishmen suddenly appeared at Chicheboville and, not knowing what to do, struck people aside with their swords and looted an inn. The people of the place besieged them at night and beat them up with ironed staves.

How many villagers secretly buried in the bushes Englishmen they surreptitiously killed? Who can tell the number of “brigands” as the English chancellory called these rebels and guerrilla warriors, who were hidden in the forests of Normandy? Why couldn’t they avenge themselves as did Galoppin, barber of Bretteville, upon the Englishman’s servant who roamed the country demanding chickens and silver pieces from the housewives?

These Normans were lively after drinking; they played at quarterstaff bouts after a market day or a pilgrimage. They didn’t let themselves be imposed upon by English archers; they defended their horses, carts, chickens and oats: it took more than a bribe for them to give up to an English forager. Woods and farmhouses were not safe for a companion-at-arms not even at night. The laborer knew how to take revenge for the wheat, the pipe of cider, fat pork and cattle that he had to give up to the garrison of foreign soldiers.

The English at that time were considered savage and bloody men. The French saw them fall upon the land, thanks to the great civil dissensions, and proceed to despoil “the holy kingdom” of its relics. This pillage, this universal robbery cried out for vengeance. The English were then also considered to be sea pirates who did not wage “great wars,” that is adventures in distant lands. What they waged in France was, in effect, a. peasant war, an atrocious war. There were reconciliations in the church and the cemetery only and these were violated as much by the French as the English. Monasteries were scenes of slaughter and were turned into stables. Divine worship ceased. Bells were thrown to the ground, broken and silent. Fire made the ruin black and complete.

The same spectacle, even more somber, was to be seen between the Somme and the Oise, that frontier country, the confines of Burgundian Picardy where the English did everything to rally the local nobility around their banner. Monasteries burned, worthy folk tortured, relics carried off, churches turned into stables or public houses, laborers and notables imprisoned and forgotten in deep dungeons and who perished there of starvation; pregnant women who gave birth prematurely and died, their children thrown into the river or to the wolves who roamed about the villages; men-at-arms not less ferocious than the wolves, whether English or partisans of the French; famine. Such are the things revealed to us by contemporary documents.

And further, as Jean Jouvenel is witness, furnishing us the outline of this dark picture of the war in the Beauvais sector, not a useless complaint came from the good folk of that land. Their hearts were the king’s faithfully, And if the later bishop of Beauvais uttered a complaint, it was to reproach the king with not pursuing the quarrel, with dozing on the banks of the Loire in his little rooms, with taking too much refuge in prayer; Jean Jouvenel affirmed the fidelity of his city, confirming it in resistance to all the false promises of the enemy and their partisans.

And passing now to the marches of Lorraine, to the country of Jeanne d’Arc, which is not Champagne, nor Barrois, nor yet Lorraine proper, but none the less French, the towns everywhere sought their municipal autonomy, and the village folk, oppressed by all the local tyrants, by the men-at-arms of three provinces who descended upon this extremely rich valley whose fields of emerald were its fortune and its crown, aspired to nothing more than liberty and peace.

They dreamed of that great justiciar of other days, the King of France, and of the king’s court of justice. As elsewhere, the exactions of the soldiery were cruelly felt, guerrilla warfare, the “ransoms” of the villages, payments for “protection,” the capture of notables, the theft of livestock, and that scourge of war, fire. The war had developed to the point that peasants were forbidden to keep a fire lighted for fear it would be too handy a means for men-at-arms to burn their cottages.

The farmer mounted guard instead of going about his work. I do not know a more eloquent witness than the few lines of an account of the month of November, 1428, imposing a fine of twenty sells upon Jean Bauldet the elder who, during sentry-duty before the gates of Foug, “went to have a look at his plow in the fields,” From this misery and oppression, rather than in the minds of lawyers, was born the fidelity to the king as protector and justiciar, and the concept of “patrie.” The word alone was lacking. But the word, pays, “land,” is also beautiful, is it not, and just as rich in meaning?

VVII The Value of the Trial Record

One cannot think of everything, In wishing to destroy Jeanne, to publish to all the world the errors of her doctrine, and her “lies,” the judges of Rouen worked greatly to preserve her memory. Through them we know truly the “great-hearted girl”; it is thanks to them that we are become judges in our turn, witnesses of the marvelous drama wherein strategy and ruse played with virtue and simplicity. In the trial we hear Jeanne’s words truly and we pity her; we weep for her.

So unfortunate, so young and candid, modest and superb, as the occasion demanded, full of good sense and at times gay, sometimes full of hope, sometimes the prey of despair, so firm in her faith that the judges called her obstinate, Jeanne appears the incarnation of virtue and simplicity — even holiness. She is entirely human, and never was humanity greater.

Suppose, for a moment, that the Trial Record had been lost and that we possessed nothing else on the subject of Jeanne but the depositions of the witnesses at the Rehabilitation and the word of the contemporary chroniclers: no, we should not really know her. Jeanne would have remained a mysterious, shadowy figure. The few important depositions of her companions-at-arms would not be enough to make her live before our eyes.

Here we have her words; we have Jeanne herself; we have in this the evangel of our devotion. We owe something else besides to the judges of Rouen. Let us imagine that she had ended her days in the house near Orléans that she had acquired, for she would doubtless have been released from a Church prison in time, if she had been merely imprisoned. How much less important she would have seemed in men’s eyes. What a different value the scene in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen would have had! They served her well in judging her so badly.

it was the stake which was, in truth, her first altar, a prophecy of that upon which the piety of man has to-day placed her. As the excellent Michelet has said: “She no longer understands salvation in the material sense, as she had until then; she sees clearly at last, and leaving the shadows she obtains that which was lacking to her of light and sanctity.”

And so in this “beau procès,” in this unjust trial, the judges have served Jeanne well. They have written the acts of her martyrdom and gathered together the gospel of our race, although they thought they were presenting their apologia to the world.

Read the Trial Record and you will be the better for it; listen to Jeanne’s words and you will reject the vain rhetoric of the improper, comic judges with their hatred, ambiguities and empty Latin, their veneer of Seneca and Statius: you will come to despise pride.

How clearly Jeanne speaks, a language fresh as brook water!

The chroniclers of the time knew her but little; the devout clerics saw nothing in her but a lesson; the chroniclers, of Burgundy saw her as a rustic and debauchée, an enemy: the English believed her to be a witch; the squires and companions saw her as a good, staunch soldier. And we modern historians try to explain the inexplicable; we add details, little niceties; we reconstruct the background of her life; we arrange the decor of the landscape and the drama. But it is in the course of the Trial that Jeanne, living, appears before us.

For Jeanne remains above all else a treasure of France, the lovely Christian flower springing from the ruins of the country. An ideal figure that seems so rare coming from rustic folk only because country people are so eternally calumniated. Jeanne’s father was in fact a good farmer, well off, possessing horses and cattle, the doyen of his village.

Her qualities, except for intensity and inspiration, were not perhaps greatly unlike those of many maids of her rank and environment. Gerson, in summing up his instructions to his sisters living in the country, the oldest of whom was twenty-six, recommended: “You, my six sisters, remain together without entering a religious order, without living in the towns during the life of our father and mother. You should be with them, and live by your handiwork; and of the inheritance which ought to belong to you, your brothers, I think, will take nothing. You ought not to ask for any other husband than the Lord.” And he addressed this instruction: to be without ostentation and pride in their dress, and to preserve always a becoming propriety. “You should say your Hours and other orisons at proper times, matins, tierce, vespers, and upon going to bed. Hear mass as often as it is possible for you to; the rest of the time you ought diligently to work, to shun idleness which is the mother of all evils, as one may see in the towns, where girls do not work. Live as quietly as you can; do not drink wine unless it is watered, and then not much; and you should not eat too much meat; and you should not eat spices, onions, nor any other food which engenders perilous heat. Make confession often, each week, and each great fête day; for confession is a thing which greatly pleases God and which restrains you from sin. Receive with devotion the true bread which nourishes the soul, that is, the body of Our Lord. Be of good peace together, and encourage the doing of good each to the other. Do not speak ill of another; do not harbor any hatred. Let the oldest be as the youngest; and serve your father and mother with good nature, willingly. Be careful not to speak to a strange man, except in public, and the less often you have to, the better. And do not trouble to go to dances and other pleasant frolics, for there is more foolishness than good in them. It would give me great pleasure, and it would be very profitable, if you could learn to read in French; for I shall send you some books of devotion, and I shall often write to you with the greatest pleasure. Why should you ask for the burdens of marriage, to leave the freedom of this life, more holy, more certain, and more devout?”

It is in the _Exercises discrets des simples devots_ that one finds these transcendental maxims for woman: She ought to learn to think on God, with nothing of the corporeal, without image, so that she will not imagine when thinking of Him an object large or small, long or short, black or white, here or there, as existing in any given place.

Gerson’s sisters did not have any idea of marrying; and it was never Jeanne’s intention. Their father, Charlier, wrote of them to his son: ” ‘Thanks be to God, they love God first of all, and fear sin; they fast one or two days a week, and say their Hours of Our Lady every day: and Marion has learned them since her husband died. And I perceive that they do not contemplate marrying at any age, but rather do they wish to please us and you.’ This is what our good father wrote me about you, my sisters. Lord, our Saviour, what joy, what consolation I have had, and have every time I examine these words. this news of you.” Such were the preoccupations of village folk, working people.

The times were hard. Misery was widespread. A poor girl was most likely to find in a husband a drunkard, a brawler, who would beat her; she would bring her children into poverty. Let woman keep her virginity, her road to paradise! Bitter ideas and how far from being earthly!

In the trial Jeanne appears to us in radiance. She says that God is her judge, that she loves God with all her heart; a concept which has always appeared to be insufficient to persons of learning. When the judges dare to call her “Saracen” she replies, simply, that she is a good Christian. She desires, heartily that the Church and Catholics pray for her And perhaps it was these short answers; “I rely upon Our Lord,” “God our Lord first of all,” which exasperated her judges most.

She is all the courtliness and the grace of France; all the chivalry that one could possibly have found in her time; she had a liking for horses and arms, the prestige of a leader. She is also all the peasant land of France. in her stubbornness. in her hardiness in work. in her irony and her mocking gayety, in her old-fashioned politeness.

She is Fidelity. The man who understood her best was one of her judges — Pierre Maurice, when he likened her faith in God to loyalty due a prince. She is, again, the image of France in her impatience: and it was by patience that her judges wore her out so inevitably.

Jeanne was a “good child,” according to the words of the angel. A precocious and serious child who danced little but sang at will, who knew her cantilènes, and went when her Voices left her. She remains the wild flower of Christian piety.

And Jeanne was, unaware, the imitator of Our Lord Jesus Christ. She trampled underfoot the impure body and was always kind to poor people and to children; intrigued against to the end, forced to the point of greatest sacrifice; active, untractable to deceivers, candid and defiant. She knew despair, doubt and agony at the end, like Jesus. She consummated the supreme sacrifice as He did.

We may ask ourselves how so many ideas and intuitions are to be found in a person as simple as she was saintly. A saint she was, without question; simple-the question is worth asking. Perhaps it is our education, our sophistication-our civilization, in a word-which has most separated men from one another, and this proportionately as the efforts toward equality have avidly increased. How far from us they seem, at times, our brothers the peasants and workers; and how well they understood one another in Jeanne’s time, the great lords and peasants who could scarcely write their names; they shared a common experience, and a common good sense, even a unifying intuition.

Jeanne is, above all things else, the wisdom of a good people. She is the People of France, the plain people of the countryside of Lorraine which is sweet and clean through the courage and faith of the people as much as through the smell of woods and orchards. Nothing has changed in the moral aspect of that countryside although many things have changed in the landscape, the forests and fountains, and the river in which her father threatened to drown her. In her village she saw bands of Burgundians prowl for spoils of war. Villagers kept their livestock in the château de I’lle for safe-keeping; here they took their cows, pigs, and sheep; the region was harassed by theft, pillaging, fires: all this was less bloody and less disastrous if one kept apart from the village. All this was profoundly serious for the times, and for the young girl who thought and dreamed.

I have seen under circumstances likewise tragic, these big market towns of Lorraine, rich and niggardly; I have seen the humble house clean and white, where young girls live, the tiny garden a few feet square, a paradise; I am acquainted with farmhouse rooms, the thick walls, the heavy oak furniture, the smell of milk and white cheese. I know, in village life, the hour when the animals come home from pasture, when the herder brings home the communal flock of pigs. I have seen with what gallantry the young girls ride on the back of farm horses. I have tasted the freshness of the springs; I know the marquetry of the fields, the forest-the mysterious forest and its springs! I have seen the Meuse flood the fields in its winding path, the willows and the crowns of the reeds. I have heard the brown young girls, accompanied by parchment-faced grandparents, pray for our war dead in these ancient Romanesque churches anchored on the banks of the Meuse, or in the solitude of the fields where the images of the saints are always decorated with garlands of flowers. I have seen refugees escaping in their long carts while their villages burned behind them. I have seen the magnificent horizons of Jeanne’s country tremble under the noise of war, the plains illumined by the fire that the night breezes fanned into flame. I have heard the daughters of Lorraine talk, in their clear speech, with the admirable gestures of plain people, of the evils that had befallen their country and their hopes. And I have heard our soldiers, like those of Jeanne’s day, discuss the tidings of prophetesses more or less official.

The words of the Trial, Jeanne’s sacred words, you will find here. And Jeanne assures us that the Voices told her: “Suffer it willingly, do not be at all disturbed about your martyrdom: you will at last come to the Kingdom of Paradise.” “Suffer it willingly” — the admirable phrase of the simple, the very phrase that Fortune addressed to poor Villon.

According to the witness of the Preaching Friars, of an old archdeacon and Pierre Maurice, the theologian, an old canon and Thomas de Courcelles, that intellectual light agreeable to the gentry of the Council, as revealed in a posthumous publication in which they attempted to explain again their attitude, Jeanne is supposed to have said on the last day of her life that she herself was the angel.

A statement interpreted, perhaps, in a sense that Jeanne did not mean it, but conforming with all that we know of her despair, while the cold sweat ran down her young face in the cell which was her Gethsemane. A falsehood which is full of meaning. It is true that she was an angel. A poet tells us that — a noble poet of the time, the Parisian canon who was secretary to Charles VII, Messer Alain Chartier:

“And she did not seem to come from any land, but rather she seemed as one sent from Heaven to support our failing France in her arms. She guided to shore, and even into port, a king tossed and struggling in the buffets of wind and tempests; she raised the spirit of the people to hope for better times. She curbed savage England and stopped the spoiling and burning of France. 0 worthy virgin, worthy of all glory, all praise, worthy of divine honors! 0 honor of the kingdom, 0 light of the lily; thou art the light, thou art the glory, not only of the French, but of all Christians! Let Troy no longer rejoice in the memory of Hector; let Greece no longer triumph with her Alexander, nor Africa with her Hannibal; let Italy no longer take pride in her Caesar and other great captains of Rome. And thou, France, even though thou

hast no lack of other heroes in the past, be content with the Maid; France, thou mayst dare be proud and enter in the lists with the other nations for military glory, and even, we may very well say, place the Maid above all others.”