Chapter XVII: Appendix: Note on Original Documents of the Process of Condemnation (1)

1. _The Minute._

The original French notes of the Trial, taken down at the time by the Registrars, formed the material on which the Authentic Document was subsequently based. A part of this original MS. is still in existence in the National Library at Paris, and is known as the ‘MS. D’Urfé.’ It begins with March 3rd, the day of the last Public Examination, and is apparently in the handwriting of Manchon, the Registrar, who had the whole in his own possession at the time of the Trial of Rehabilitation. The Fragment was discovered among the MSS. of the D’Urfé Library in the reign of Louis XVI. by Laverdy.

2. _The Authentic Document._

This was the original Latin translation of the Minute, made by Thomas de Courcelles, signed by the Registrars, and attested by the seals of the two Judges. No trace of this first document can be found; but the Bishop of Beauvais caused five complete and legally attested copies to be made, three of these being in the writing of Manchon, the Registrar, of which there are still in existence, (1) Copy made for the King of England, now in the Library of the Corps Législatif in Paris; (2) Copy for the Bishop of Beauvais, formerly in the Colbert Library; and (3) Copy for the Inquisitor, formerly in the Dupuy Library—the last two being now in the National Library at Paris. The two other copies are lost, one having been sent to the Pope, whilst the other was the property of Manchon himself.

Besides these Original Documents, there are also seven copies of the Process, of different dates: five in the National Library, one in the Vatican, and one at Geneva.

NOTE ON THE DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE TRIAL OF REHABILITATION

In the Preface to the Authentic Document of the Rehabilitation, the Notaries, Denis Lecomte and François Ferrebouc, state that they have prepared under their seals three copies of the Process of Rehabilitation, one containing also the entire Process of the Trial of Condemnation: this Copy is unfortunately lost. The two still in existence, both in the National Library of Paris, contain only the text of the Trial of 1455–6. In one of these Manuscripts are inserted the Eight Memorials presented to the Holy See in favour of Jeanne.

The Second Manuscript contains only the Memorial of Gerson. Other Documents connected with the Enquiries may be found in _Quicherat_, Vol. II., and in Lanery d’Arc’s _Mémoires et Consultations en faveur de Jeanne d’Arc_, the most important being the _Opinions_ of sundry learned Doctors given in 1452, and the _Recollectio_ of Jean Bréhal in 1456.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE TRIAL

In order to understand more fully the course of events in the last year of Jeanne’s life, it may be well to give in some detail the story of her capture at Compiègne on May 23rd, 1430, and of the negotiations and legal preliminaries which preceded the opening of the Case in the following February. Strangely enough, there is in the Trial of Rehabilitation absolutely no witness to this period. It may therefore be more satisfactory to quote at some length from the contemporary Chronicles, which, as regards the Capture itself, are fortunately very explicit.

In the early dawn of Tuesday, May 23rd, Jeanne started from Crespy with about 400 followers to reinforce the garrison of Compiègne, then besieged by the combined forces of England and Burgundy. Of the events of that day there is no better account than that given in the Chronicle of Percival de Cagny,[213] which reads as follows:—

‘The 23rd day of the month of May, the Maid, being in the said place of Crespy, learned that the Duke of Burgundy,[214] with a great number of men-at-arms and others, and the Earl of Arundel, had come to besiege the said town of Compiègne. About midnight she departed from the said place of Crespy, in the company of 300 or 400 fighting men. And although her followers said to her, that she had too few people with her to pass through the army of the Burgundians and of the English, she exclaimed: “By my staff! [_Par mon martin!_] we are enough; I am going to see my good friends of Compiègne.”

‘She arrived at the said place about sunrise, and, without loss or disturbance either to herself or to her followers, she entered the said town. On the same day the Burgundians and English had come to make an assault in the field before the said town. There were done many feats of arms on the one side and on the other. The Burgundians and English, knowing that the Maid was in the town, thought that those within would sally forth in great strength, and for this the Burgundians placed a strong ambush of their followers under cover of a lofty mountain near by, named the Mount of Clairoy. And, about nine in the morning, the Maid heard that the assault was hot and fierce in the field before the said town. She armed herself and her followers, mounted on horseback, and went to join the _mêlée_. And no sooner was she come than the enemy turned back and were put to flight. The Maid charged hard upon the flank of the Burgundians. Those in ambush gave warning to their followers, who turned back in great disorder, and then, breaking up their ambuscade, they spurred on to place themselves between the town-bridge and the Maid and her company. And the one part of them turned right on the Maid in such force that those of her company could not withstand them, and said to the Maid, “Strive hard to regain the town, or you and we are lost.”

‘When the Maid heard them speak thus, she cried to them, angrily, “Silence! It only depends on you to discomfit them. Think only of striking them down.” But whatsoever she might say, these people would not believe it, and forcibly compelled her to withdraw to the bridge. And when the Burgundians and English saw that she was returning to the town, they, by supreme effort, reached the end of the bridge. And great feats of arms were done there. The captain of the place, seeing vast multitudes of Burgundians and English about to cross the bridge, for the fear that he had of the loss of the place, commanded the bridge of the town to be raised and the gates closed. And there remained the Maid hemmed in without, and few of her followers with her. When her enemies saw this, all made effort to seize her. She resisted stoutly against them, but in the end was taken by five or six acting together, some laying hands on her, others on her horse, and each saying, “Surrender to me and give parole.” She answered and said, “I have sworn and given my parole to Another than you, and to Him will I give my oath.” And, saying these words, she was taken to the lodging of Messire Jehan de Luxembourg.

‘Messire Jehan de Luxembourg[215] had her kept in his lodging for three or four days; and, after that, he remained at the siege of the said town and had the Maid sent to a castle named Beaulieu, in Vermandois. And there was she kept prisoner during the space of four months or thereabouts. After this, the said de Luxembourg, by means of the Bishop of Thérouanne,[216] his brother, and Chancellor of France for the English King, delivered her to the Duke of Bedford, Lieutenant in France for the King of England, his nephew, for the price of fifteen or sixteen thousand _saluts_ [the _salut_ being worth about £1] paid to the said de Luxembourg. Thus was the Maid put into the hands of the English and taken to the Castle of Rouen, at which the said Duke then held his residence. She being in prison in the said Castle of Beaulieu, he who had been her steward[217] before her capture, and who served her in prison, said to her, “That poor town of Compiègne, which you have so much loved up to this time, will fall again into the hands and the power of the enemies of France!”

‘And she answered him, “It will not be, for all the places which the King of Heaven hath subdued and put into the hands and jurisdiction of the gentle King Charles by my means, will not be retaken by his enemies, so long as he will take pains to keep them.”’

The following additional details in regard to the Capture of the Maid are taken from George Chatellain’s _Histoire de Philippe Le Bon_:—‘The Maid, passing the nature of woman, did bear great weight, and took much pains to preserve her company from loss, remaining in the rear as becomes the chief and as the most valiant of the troop, when fortune did so permit, for the ending of her glory and for the last time that ever she should bear arms. An archer, a hard man and very churlish, having great spite that a woman of whom he had heard so much talk should drive back so many valiant men as she had done, caught her from one side by her surcoat of cloth-of-gold, and dragged her from her horse to the ground: she could find neither rescue nor help from her followers that she might be remounted, notwithstanding the pains they took. But a man-at-arms, named the Bastard de Wandonne,[218] who arrived just as she fell, pressed her so closely that she gave him her parole, for that he said he was a man of noble birth. The which man-at-arms, more joyful than if he had gotten a king into his hands, took her hastily to Marigny, and there kept her under guard till the end of the affair. And there were taken also with her, Pouthon the Burgundian, a gentleman-at-arms of the French party; the brother of the Maid; her steward; and certain others, in small numbers, who were taken to Marigny and held in safe keeping.’

On the same day, the Duke of Burgundy wrote the following letter to the people of Saint Quentin:—

‘By order of the Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders, Artois, Burgundy, and Namur.

‘Very dear and well-beloved, knowing that you desire to have news of us, we signify to you that this day, the 23rd May, towards six o’clock in the afternoon, the adversaries of our Lord the King [Henry VI.] and of us, who were assembled together in great power, and entrenched in the town of Compiègne, before which we and the men of our army were quartered, have made a sally from the said town in force on the quarters of our advanced guard nearest to them, in the which sally was she whom they call the Maid, with many of their principal captains. In the encounter with whom, our fair cousin, Messire Jehan de Luxembourg, who was there present, and others of our people, and some of the people of our Lord the King whom he had sent before us to pass over to Paris, made great and bitter resistance. And presently we arrived in person and found that the said adversaries were already driven back, and by the pleasure of our blessed Creator, it had so happened and such grace had been granted to us, that the said Maid had been taken; and with her many captains, knights, squires and others were taken, drowned, and killed, of whom to this hour we yet know not the names, only that none of our followers nor the followers of my Lord the King are either killed or taken, and that only twenty are wounded, thanks to God. The which capture, as we certainly hold, will be great news everywhere; and by it will be recognized the error and foolish belief of all those who have shewn themselves well-disposed and favourable to the doings of the said woman. And this thing we write for our news, hoping that in it you will have joy, comfort, and consolation, and will render thanks and praise to our Creator, Who seeth and knoweth all things, and Who by His blessed pleasure will conduct the rest of our enterprizes to the good of our said Lord the King and his kingdom, and to the relief and comfort of his good and loyal subjects.

‘Very dear and well-beloved, the Holy Spirit have you in His Holy Keeping.

‘Written at Codun, near Compiègne, the 23rd day of May. Subscribed: To our very dear and good friends the Clergy, citizens and inhabitants of Saint Quentin, in Vermandois.’

In the Notes of Clement de Fauquembergue, Registrar of the Parliament of Paris, occurs the following passage:—‘Thursday, the 25th day of May, 1430, Messire Louis de Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, Chancellor of France, received letters from Messire Jean de Luxembourg, Knight, his brother, making mention, among other things, that on Tuesday last, in a sally made by the captains and men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois, then in the town of Compiègne, against the people of the Duke of Burgundy, encamped and come against the said town with the intention of besieging it, the people of the said De Valois were in such manner compelled to retreat that many of them had no time to enter again into the said town. And many of them threw themselves into the river adjacent to the walls, to the peril of their lives; others remained prisoners of the said Messire Jean de Luxembourg, and the followers of the said Duke of Burgundy, who, among others, seized and held prisoner this woman whom the followers of the said Messire Charles called the Maid.’[219]

The news of the Maid’s capture was received in Paris with much rejoicing,[220] and _Te Deums_ were ordered to be sung in the Churches. The University and the Inquisition at once took up the matter, and wrote on the following day, May 26th, to the Duke of Burgundy, requesting him to claim the prisoner as a heretic against the Church. Six weeks later, on July 14th, letters were sent from the University both to the Duke and to Jean de Luxembourg to the same effect. On the same day, Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, acting for the Regent Bedford, arrived at the Burgundian camp to negotiate for the purchase of the Maid. He claimed her as a prisoner of the Church, but nevertheless offered the usual ransom of a king, 10,000 livres tournois [about £16,000 of our present value].

The arrangements presented, however, matters of long deliberation. The Duke and Jean de Luxembourg, whether from scruples of conscience or in hope of still higher ransom from the party of the King of France, were in no hurry to part with their prisoner. She had been removed to the Castle of Beaulieu at the end of May; and here she remained until August, with her faithful follower d’Aulon still in attendance on her. No records remain of her sojourn; but she herself gives evidence at the Trial of her attempt to escape, which was all but successful. Early in August, she was sent to Beaurevoir, where for a time she had the society of the wife and the aunt of Jean de Luxembourg. Of the latter, the Countess de Ligny, she spoke at the Trial in terms of great affection. Whilst at Beaurevoir, she heard of the negotiations for her delivery to the English. In despair for herself, and overwhelmed with grief for the sorrows of her beloved friends of Compiègne, who were then in great straits, she threw herself[221] from the top of the Keep, a height of sixty feet, hoping, as she afterwards said, at least to escape from her enemies. She was taken up, stunned, but not severely injured by her fall, and was kept in closer ward until, in the middle of November, the arrangements for her purchase were completed. From Beaurevoir she was removed to Arras; thence to Crotoy, where she was handed over to the tender mercies of the English, who kept her, in comparatively easy confinement, until it should be decided where the Trial was to take place—the University claiming her for Paris, the Regent preferring to keep her more strictly within his own power. In December, a decision was arrived at. Rouen was fixed upon as the most suitable place, both as a stronghold of the English and as the residence of the Regent and the Court. To Rouen, accordingly, the Maid was brought, and there lodged in a tower of the Castle, under the guard of English soldiers.

The room in which she was confined was situated in a tower of the Castle of Rouen, now no longer in existence; it was on the first floor, up eight steps;[222] not far from the back entrance,[223] and facing the fields.[224] There were three keys to the prison: one retained by the Cardinal of England or his Secretary, one kept by the Inquisitor, and one by the Promoter.[225] The Maid was under the close surveillance of five common soldiers (_houcepailliers_), three of whom remained in the room day and night, while two guarded the door.[226] She was heavily ironed, and chained to a beam which crossed the end of her bed.[227] It is reported also that a cage, in which she could stand upright had been made for her; but, although this is mentioned by several persons, no one can remember to have seen it in use. The Castle being under the control of the Governor, the Earl of Warwick, the captive was officially in his hands; and for this reason the guardians appointed later to see to her safe custody were members of his household or of the Royal Bodyguard: John Gris or Grey, Talbot, and Berwoist, whose commission is made out by the authority of the Bishop on March 13th.

Many of the Assessors considered that Jeanne should have been placed in the prisons of the Church, and not left in the hands of the English. Lefevre remarks that no one dared say this; and De Courcelles states that it was never brought up as a matter for consultation, although Ladvenu refers to a discussion at the first Session, during which, in response to a generally expressed opinion that Jeanne should be placed under Ecclesiastical ward, the Bishop announced that this could not be done “for fear of the English.” At this first Session, February 21st, neither Ladvenu nor De Courcelles was present.

The Trial opened, according to the Official Report, on January the 9th. It was based on the Procedure of the trials of the Holy Office; and, although the Inquisitor himself was not _officially_ present until a month later, the Inquisitorial form was punctiliously observed. This form was as follows:—

1. _Process ex officio._
Enquiry as to facts of accusation.
Examination of the Accused on the results of this enquiry.
The Promoter then draws up the case, if any be undertaken.

2. _Process in ordinary._
Trial and examination of the Accused, sometimes by torture.
Sentence.

This Procedure was carefully observed in the case of Jeanne. The process _ex officio_, beginning in January, with the suppressed Domremy Enquiry, comprised the Six Public and Nine Private Examinations, and ended with the drawing up of the Seventy Articles, the Act of Accusation, on March 26th. The Process in Ordinary began on March 27th, with the reading of the Seventy Articles and Jeanne’s examination upon them. She was brought into the Torture Chamber on May the 9th; but the decision of the greater number of the Assessors being against the use of extreme measures, nothing was done. The Sentence was read on May 24th, condemning her to perpetual imprisonment.

Of the legality of the Trial there were grave doubts, expressed both at the beginning and also later on, when some opportunity had been given by the Public Examinations for those not absolutely prejudiced against the Accused, to form an opinion as regards the impartiality of the Judges. On the first day, Houppeville, whose testimony was given in full at the Rehabilitation, was present in Court; but, having dared to express his opinion that the action to be undertaken was fraught with some danger, he was afterwards refused admission, and was sent for by the Bishop to be reprimanded. As he was not in the Diocese of Beauvais he refused submission; but his appeal to his own Chapter at Rouen was disregarded, and he was thrown into prison, from which he was only released some days later through the intervention of the Abbot of Jumièges.

Lohier, a celebrated legal authority, who was present in Rouen during the earlier part of the Examination, expressed his opinions to the Bishop at some length, stating that the whole Trial was absolutely worthless: (1) on account of its form, (2) that the Assessors were not at liberty to hold their own views, the Trial being in the Castle and therefore not in open Court, (3) that no opportunity was given to the party of the French King to speak for themselves, (4) that Jeanne herself was allowed no Counsel,[228] nor had proper documents been prepared to support the Accusation. The Bishop, furious at this interference, summoned a meeting at his house to discuss the matter, and announced his decision to take no notice of the opinions thus expressed, but to continue as before. On the following day, Lohier left Rouen, remarking to the Registrar of the Trial: “It seems to me they act more from hate than aught else: and for this reason I will not stay here, for I do not wish to be in it.”

Massieu, the Usher of the Court, afterwards stated that Jeanne had asked for Counsel, and had been refused; but there is no reference to any such request in the message he gives from her at the time of her citation.[229]

The Bishop’s violent resentment at any interference is noted by more than one witness; and, indeed, the whole conduct of the Trial may be not inaptly described in the words of one of the Assessors, Maître Grouchet: “all was violence in this affair.”

The Trial itself was held in the Castle of Rouen, where Henry VI. had just been spending Christmas in state.

At the First Session, in the Castle Chapel, the noise and disturbance were so great that it was decided that future Sessions should be held in a smaller room, and from this time the Court met in the Ornament Room, opening from the Great Hall. Two Englishmen kept the door.[230]

The Meetings of May 19th and May 29th, preliminary to the closing of the First and Second Processes, respectively were held outside the Castle in the Chapel of the Archiepiscopal Manor, possibly with a view to giving an air of greater publicity to the proceedings. The room in which the instruments of torture were exhibited to Jeanne is on the ground-floor of the only part of the old Castle now standing, called the Great Tower. The smaller tower, in which Jeanne’s prison was situated, was still in ruins until the beginning of the present century, and went by the name of the Tower of La Pucelle; but it has now entirely disappeared.

The three Registrars, Manchon, Boisguillaume, and Taquel (the last only after March 14th), were seated at the feet of the Judges. The clerks of Beaupère and Erard, Jean de Monnet and Jean de Lenozelles, were sometimes with them; two English clerks, under the direction of Loyseleur, were hidden behind a curtain.[231]

Jeanne was seated on a chair, and questioned, generally from 8 to 11 a.m., by the Bishop and the six University Delegates. Sometimes they all spoke together, insomuch that Jeanne protested: “Beaux Seigneurs, faites l’un après l’autre.”[232]

In the evidence given at the Rehabilitation, we learn that on more than one occasion Jeanne received advice from friendly Assessors, notably from Brother Duval and Brother Ysambard de la Pierre; but their well-meant interference seems only to have further incensed her Judges against her, and occasionally produced a violent altercation.

On the other hand, Jeanne was cruelly misled by Nicolas Loyseleur, one of the Canons of Rouen, who disguised himself as a fellow-countryman of the Marches of Lorraine, and, by false messages from her friends, wormed himself into the confidence of the Maid, even inducing her to allow him to act as her Confessor: nor did he scruple to report any admission she might make to the Bishop and the Inquisitor. The Registrars, Manchon and Boisguillaume, were even required by Cauchon to place themselves in a room adjoining the prison, provided with a so-called “Judas” ear, in order that they might take notes of the conversation between the prisoner and Loyseleur: but this, to their everlasting honour, they refused to do.

The Registrars appear to have had their difficulties from the very beginning. The notes taken by them at the morning sittings were read over in the presence of some of the Assessors at the Bishop’s lodgings in the afternoon, and compared with those made by the concealed English clerks. Differences of opinion arose very often; but the officials refused to allow their own notes to be overridden, and, whenever any disputed point was referred to the Accused, their version was always found to be correct. These notes were finally drawn up by Manchon in a complete form, and upon them is based the whole account of the Trial as it appears in the Latin translation, the subsequent work of Thomas de Courcelles.

ACT OF ACCUSATION PREPARED BY THE PROMOTER

The Seventy Articles

[The Seventy Articles, prepared by the Promoter, d’Estivet, which
form the Accusation of the Trial in Ordinary, were read to Jeanne
by Thomas de Courcelles, on Tuesday, March 27th. In her replies,
here given, Jeanne refers constantly to previous answers. The
dates of Examinations, in which these are said to occur, follow in
notes.]

ARTICLE I. And first, according to Divine Law, as according to Canon and Civil Law, it is to you, the Bishop, as Judge Ordinary, and to you, the Deputy, as Inquisitor of the Faith, that it appertaineth to drive away, destroy, and cut out from the roots in your Diocese and in all the kingdom of France, heresies, witchcrafts, superstitions, and other crimes of that nature; it is to you that it appertaineth to punish, to correct and to amend heretics and all those who publish, say, profess, or in any other manner act against our Catholic Faith: to wit, sorcerers, diviners, invokers of demons, those who think ill of the Faith, all criminals of this kind, their abettors and accomplices, apprehended in your Diocese or in your jurisdiction, not only for the misdeeds they may have committed there, but even for the part of their misdeeds that they may have committed elsewhere, saving, in this respect, the power and duty of the other Judges competent to pursue them in their respective dioceses, limits, and jurisdictions. And your power as to this exists against all lay persons, whatever be their estate, sex, quality, and pre-eminence: in regard to all you are competent Judges.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I believe surely that our Lord the Pope of Rome, the Bishops, and other Clergy, are established to guard the Christian Faith and punish those who are found wanting therein: but as for me, for my doings I submit myself only to the Heavenly Church—that is to say, to God, to the Virgin Mary, and to the Saints in Paradise. I firmly believe I have not wavered in the Christian Faith, nor would I waver.”

ARTICLE II. The Accused, not only this year, but from her infancy, and not only in your Diocese, Bishop, and your jurisdiction, Deputy, but also in many other places of this kingdom, hath done, composed, contrived and ordained a number of sacrileges and superstitions: she made herself a diviner; she caused herself to be adored and venerated; she hath invoked demons, and evil spirits; consulted them, associated with them, hath made and had with them compacts, treaties, and conventions, hath made use of them, hath furnished to others, acting in the same manner, aid, succour, and favour, and hath, in much, led them on to act like herself; she hath said, affirmed, and maintained that to act thus, to use witchcraft, divinations, superstitions, was not a sin, was not a forbidden thing, but, on the contrary, a thing lawful, to be praised, worthy of approval; also she hath led into these errors and evil doings a very great number of persons of divers estates, of both sexes, and hath imprinted on their hearts the most fatal errors. Jeanne hath been taken and arrested within the limits of your diocese of Beauvais, in the very act (_flagrante delicto_) of perpetrating all these misdoings.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I deny ever having used witchcraft, superstitious works, or divinations. As to allowing myself to be adored, if any kissed my hands and my garments, it was not my doing or by my wish; I sought to protect myself from it, and to prevent it as much as in me lay. And as for the rest of the Article, I deny it.”

ARTICLE III. The Accused hath fallen into many diverse and detestable errors which reek of heresy. She hath said, vociferated, uttered, published and inculcated within the hearts of the simple, false and lying propositions allied to heresy, even themselves heretical, contrary to our Catholic Faith and its principles, to Gospel rules, and to the Statutes established or approved by General Councils; propositions, contrary not only to the Divine Law but also to Canon and Civil Law; propositions scandalous, sacrilegious, contrary to good manners, offensive to pious ears: she hath furnished help, counsel and favour to the people who dogmatized, affirmed, or promulgated such propositions.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I deny it, and on the contrary affirm that I have always upheld the Church so far as it lay in my power.”

ARTICLE IV. But it is time to instruct you more fully and more directly, my Lords and Judges, on the offences, excesses, crimes, and misdemeanours, committed by the Accused in the diocese of Beauvais and elsewhere, in many and divers places.

It is true that the Accused was born in the village of Grus [Greux], of Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle, his wife; that she lived until seventeen years old or thereabouts in the village of Domremy, on the Meuse, in the diocese of Toul, in the Bailly of Chaumont, in Bassigny, in the provosty of Montclère and Andelot. In her childhood, she was not instructed in the beliefs and principles of our Faith; but by certain old women she was initiated in the science of witchcraft, divination, superstitious doings, and magical arts. Many inhabitants of these villages have been known for all time as using these kinds of witchcraft: Jeanne hath herself said that she learned from several, notably from her godmother, many things touching her visions and the apparitions of fairies; through others also, she hath been penetrated by the detestable and pernicious errors of these evil spirits—so much so, that, in these interrogations before you, she hath confessed that even now she doth not know if these fairies were evil spirits or not.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“For the first part it is true, in so far as concerns my father, my mother, and the place of my birth. As to the fairies, I do not know what they are. On what touches my teaching, I learnt to believe, and have been brought up well and duly to do what a good child ought to do. For what concerns my godmother, I refer to what I have said on another occasion. You ask me to say the Creed? Ask my confessor, to whom I said it.”

ARTICLE V. Near the village of Domremy there is a great tree, big and ancient; it is called “the Charmed Tree of the Fairy of Bourlement”: near by is a spring; round this tree and this spring live, it is said, evil spirits called fairies, with whom those who use witchcraft are accustomed to come and dance at night.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“For the tree and the spring, I refer to my previous answers. The rest, I deny.”[233]

ARTICLE VI. Accustomed to frequent this tree and this spring, above all by night, sometimes also by day, but at the times when the Church celebrates the Divine Office, Jeanne, in order to find herself more alone, danced roundelays around this tree and this spring; from time to time she hung from its branches garlands of herbs and flowers woven by her own hands, accompanying her dances with songs mingled with invocations, sorceries, and other witchcrafts: the garlands thus left overnight on the following morning were not to be found.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer for a part to my previous answers; the rest I deny.”[234]

ARTICLE VII. Jeanne was in the habit of carrying about with her a mandrake, hoping thereby to secure fortune and riches in this world, she, in fact, believed that the mandrake has the virtue of procuring fortune.

“What have you to say about the mandrake?”

“I deny it entirely.”[235]

ARTICLE VIII. Towards her twentieth year, Jeanne, of her own wish, and without permission of her father and mother, went to Neufchâteau, in Lorraine, and was in service for some time at the house of a woman, an inn-keeper named La Rousse, where lived women of evil life, and where soldiers were accustomed to lodge in great numbers. During her stay in this inn, Jeanne sometimes stayed with these evil women, sometimes took the sheep into the fields, or led the horses to watering in the meadows and pastures: it was there that she learnt to ride on horseback and to use arms.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I said elsewhere. I deny the rest.”[236]

ARTICLE IX. Whilst she was in service with these women Jeanne indicted a young man before the Officials at Toul for breach of promise; many times she repaired to Toul for this end, and spent thus nearly all that she had. This young man refused to marry her, because he knew she had been connected with evil women. He died during the trial. Jeanne then, unable to remain longer, quitted the service of this woman.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“On the subject of this trial for marriage I have answered elsewhere and refer to my answer. I deny the rest.”[237]

ARTICLE X. After having quitted the service of La Rousse, Jeanne pretended, and still doth pretend, to have had continually during five years, visions and apparitions of Saint Michael Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret. They revealed to her, she says, by order of God, that she should raise the siege of Orleans and crown Charles, whom she calls her King; and that afterwards she would drive out his enemies from the realm of France. In spite of her father and mother, she left home, of her own motion, of her sole inspiration, and went to Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs, to whom she communicated, in virtue of the order of Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret, the visions and revelations that God had made to her, asking of the said Robert to find her the means to accomplish what had been revealed to her. Twice repulsed by Robert, she returned twice to her parents. Returning a third time to the attempt, on a pretended order sent to her by revelation, she was then admitted and received by the said Robert.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I said before.”[238]

ARTICLE XI. Having become familiar with the said Robert, Jeanne boasted that, after having done and accomplished all that had been commanded her of God, she would have three sons, of whom the first should be Pope, the second Emperor, and the third King. Robert de Baudricourt, hearing this, said to her, “Would I could be father to one myself, if they are to be such great people! my own value would thereby be the greater!” “Nay, nay, gentle Robert,” replied Jeanne, “it is not time; the Holy Spirit will accomplish it.”[239] This is the tale which the said Robert hath in many places often affirmed, told and published, and this in presence of prelates, lords, and high personages.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I have already said.[240] I never boasted that I should have three children.”[241]

ARTICLE XII. In order the more openly and better to attain her end, Jeanne asked of Robert de Baudricourt to have made for her a man’s dress and armour appropriate. This captain, with great repugnance, ended by acquiescing in her request. These garments and armour made and furnished, Jeanne, rejecting and abandoning women’s clothing, her hair cut a-round like a young coxcomb, took shirt, breeches, doublet, with hose joined together and fastened to the said doublet by twenty points, long leggings laced on the outside, a short mantle [surcoat] to the knees, or thereabouts, close-cut cap, tight-fitting boots or buskins, long spurs, sword, dagger, breastplate, lance and other arms in fashion of a man of war, affirming that in this she was executing the order of God, as had been prescribed to her by revelation.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“I refer to what I said before.”

“Did you then take this costume, these arms, and all this warlike apparel by the order of God?”

“On this also I refer to what I said before.”[242]

ARTICLE XIII. Jeanne attributes to God, His Angels and His Saints, orders which are against the modesty of the sex, and which are prohibited by the Divine Law, things abominable to God and man, interdicted on pain of anathema by ecclesiastical censure, such as dressing herself in the garments of a man, short, tight, dissolute, those underneath as well as above. It is in virtue of these pretended orders that she hath attired herself in sumptuous and stately raiment, cloth-of-gold and furs; and not only did she wear short tunics, but she dressed herself in tabards, and garments open at both sides; and it is notorious that she was taken prisoner in a loose cloak of cloth-of-gold. She was always seen with a cap on her head, her hair cut short and a-round in the style of a man. In one word, putting aside the modesty of her sex, she acted not only against all feminine decency, but even against the reserve which beseems men of good morals, wearing ornaments and garments which only profligate men are accustomed to use, and going so far as to carry arms of offence. To attribute all this to the order of God, to the order which had been transmitted to her by the Angels and even by Virgin Saints, is to blaspheme God and His Saints, to destroy the Divine Law and violate the Canonical Rules; it is to libel the sex and its virtue, to overturn all decency, to justify all examples of dissolute living, and to drive others thereto.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I have not blasphemed God nor His Saints.”[243]

ARTICLE XIV. Jeanne affirms that she has done right in attiring herself in garments worn only by dissolute men; she doth profess that she will continue to retain them until she shall have received, by revelation, the express order of God: by this, she outrages God, the Angels, and the Saints.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I do no wrong in serving God; to-morrow I will answer you.”

[One of the Assessors]: “Did you have revelation or order to wear a man’s dress?”

“I have already answered that elsewhere. I refer to my previous sayings. To-morrow I will answer. I know well who made me take a man’s dress; but I do not know how I can reveal it.”[244]

ARTICLE XV. Jeanne, having many times asked that she might be permitted to hear Mass, hath been invited to quit the dress she now wears and to take again her woman’s dress; she hath been allowed to hope that she will be admitted to hear Mass and to receive Communion, if she will renounce entirely the dress of a man and take that of a woman, as beseems her sex; she hath refused. In other words, she hath chosen rather not to approach the Sacraments nor to assist in Divine Service, than to put aside her habit, pretending that this would displease God. In this appears her obstinacy, her hardness of heart, her lack of charity, her disobedience to the Church, and her contempt of Divine Sacraments.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I would rather die than revoke what I have done by the order of Our Lord.”

“Will you, to hear Mass, abandon the dress of a man?”

“I will not abandon it yet; the time is not come. If you refuse to let me hear Mass, it is in the power of Our Lord to let me hear it, when it shall please Him, without you. I recollect being admonished to take again a woman’s dress. As to the irreverence and such like things, I deny them.”[245]

ARTICLE XVI. Previous to, and since her capture, at the Castle of Beaurevoir and at Arras, Jeanne hath been many times advised with gentleness, by noble persons of both sexes, to give up her man’s dress and resume suitable attire. She hath absolutely refused, and to this day also she refuses with persistence; she disdains also to give herself up to feminine work, conducting herself in all things rather as a man than as a woman.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“At Arras and Beaurevoir I was invited to take a woman’s dress; then I refused, and I refuse still. As to the women’s work of which you speak, there are plenty of other women to do it.”[246]

ARTICLE XVII. When Jeanne found herself in the presence of Charles, thus attired and armed, she promised him these three things among others: that she would raise the siege of Orleans; that she would have him consecrated at Rheims; that she would avenge him on his enemies, who, all of them, English or Burgundians, should be, thanks to her, killed or driven out of the kingdom. Many times and in many places did she repeat publicly the same boasts; and, to give them greater weight, then and often afterwards, she did use divinations, and by these means unveiled the morals, the entire life, the most secret acts, of persons who came before her, whom she had never before seen or known; she boasted of knowing all by revelation.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“In the name of God I brought the news to my King that Our Lord would restore the kingdom to him, cause him to be crowned at Rheims, and drive out all his enemies; I was a messenger from God, when I told the King boldly to set me to work and I would raise the siege of Orleans. I mean, in so saying, the whole kingdom; and if my Lord of Burgundy and the other subjects of the King do not return to their obedience, the King will know how to make them by force. As to the end of the Article, of knowing Robert de Baudricourt and my King, I hold to what I said before.”[247]

ARTICLE XVIII. So long as Jeanne remained with Charles, she did dissuade him with all her power, him and those with him, from consenting to any treaty of peace, any arrangement with his adversaries; inciting them always to murder and effusion of blood; affirming that they could only have peace by sword and lance; and that God willed it so, because otherwise the enemies of the King would not give up that which they held in his kingdom; to fight against them thus, is, she told them, one of the greatest benefits that can happen to all Christendom.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“As to my Lord of Burgundy, I requested him by my ambassadors and my letters that he would make peace between my King and himself; but as to the English, the peace they need is that they may go away to their own country, to England. I have answered on the remainder of the Article; and I refer to this answer.”[248]

ARTICLE XIX. It was by consulting demons and using divinations, that Jeanne sent to look for a sword hidden in the Church of Saint Catherine de Fierbois: (perchance she had already maliciously, fraudulently, and deceitfully hidden or caused to be hidden this sword in the same church, to seduce the princes, nobles, clergy, and people, to induce them to believe more easily that she knew by revelation in what place this sword was). By this stratagem and others of a like nature she succeeded in inspiring an absolute faith in all her words.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I said before; I deny all the rest.”[249]

ARTICLE XX. She hath put faith in her ring, in her banner, in certain pieces of linen, and pennons which she carried or caused to be carried by her people, and also in the sword found by revelation, according to her, at Saint Catherine de Fierbois, saying that these things were very fortunate. She made thereon many execrations and conjurations, in many and divers places, publicly asserting that by them she would do great things and would obtain victory over her enemies; that to those of her people who carried pennons of this kind no ill could happen. She said all this at Compiègne on the eve of the day when, having sallied to attack my lord the Duke of Burgundy, she was taken prisoner and many of her followers were wounded, killed, or taken. She said as much at Saint Denis, when she incited her army to attack Paris.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“I refer to what I have already said. In all I have done there was never any sorcery or evil arts. As for the good luck of my banner, I refer it to the fortune sent through it by Our Lord (_de bonâ fortunâ sui estandart se refert ad fortunium quod Dominus Noster in es transmissit_).”[250]

ARTICLE XXI. Jeanne, by temerity or presumption, hath caused to be written certain letters at the head of which she placed the names ‘Jhésus Maria,’ with a cross in the middle. These letters she caused to be addressed in her name to our Lord the King, to my Lord of Bedford, Regent of France, to the lords and captains who were then at the siege of Orleans, containing a number of things wicked, pernicious, contrary to the Catholic Faith, the tenour of which is found in the Article which follows:

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I did not send the letters of which you speak in pride or in presumption, but by command of Our Lord. I remember and acknowledge the contents of these letters, with the exception of three words. If the English had believed my letters, they would only have been wise; and before seven years are gone they will perceive it well enough!”[251]

ARTICLE XXII. Tenour of the letter:[252]

“What have you to say to this letter?”

“I remember having it written except three words, which I did not dictate. If the English had believed my words they would have acted wisely. Before seven years are gone, they will feel the truth of what I wrote to them, and for that, I refer to the answer which I made elsewhere.”

ARTICLE XXIII. The tenour of the letter contained in the preceding Article proves well that Jeanne hath been the sport of evil spirits, and that she often consulted them to know what she ought to do; or, at least, that, to seduce the people, she imagined these inventions by lying or wickedness.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I deny ever having done anything under the inspiration of evil spirits.”[253]

ARTICLE XXIV. Jeanne hath gravely misused the names “Jhésus Maria” and the sign of the cross placed beside them; it was understood between her and her people that, when they saw on her letters these words and this sign, they were to do the contrary of what she wrote: and, in fact, they did do the contrary.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I said before.”[254]

ARTICLE XXV. Usurping the office of Angels, Jeanne hath said and affirmed that she hath been sent by God; and she hath said this even for cases which tend openly to violence and effusion of human blood: a proposition the most foreign to all holiness, horrible and abominable to all pious souls.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“First, I begged them to make peace; and it was only in case they would not make peace that I was ready to fight.”[255]

ARTICLE XXVI. Jeanne, being at Compiègne in August of 1429, did receive from the Count d’Armagnac a letter of which the tenour forms the article which follows.

“What have you to say to this Article?”

“I refer to what I said before.”[256]

ARTICLE XXVII. Tenour of the said letter.[257]

ARTICLE XXVIII. To this letter Jeanne did send in answer the letter signed with her name, found in the Articles which follow.

ARTICLES XXIX. AND XXX. Letter of Jeanne to the Count d’Armagnac.[258]

“What have you to say on these Articles, XXVII., XXVIII., XXIX., XXX., which have been read to you with great care, from the first word to the last?”

“I refer to what I answered on Article XXVI.”[259]

_Continuation of the Reading of the Articles in Open Court._

[The next day, Wednesday, March 28th, in the same room, near the great Hall of the Castle of Rouen, before the Bishop and Brother Jean Lemaître, assisted by 35 Assessors.]

Before them hath been resumed the reading, begun the preceding day, of the Articles in the document produced by the Promoter. Their contents in French, being shewn to Jeanne, Article by Article, she hath been questioned on each of these Articles and hath continued to reply, as here followeth, after having anew sworn to speak truth on everything touching the Trial.[260]

ARTICLE XXXI. From the time of her childhood and since, Jeanne hath boasted, and every day still doth boast, of having had, and of still having, numerous revelations and visions on the subject which, although she hath been on this charitably admonished and legally required to swear, she hath not made, nor wished to make, nor is now willing to make, any oath. She will not even make known the revelations made to her, by words nor by signs. This she hath postponed, contested, refused, and doth now also postpone, contest, and refuse. Many times hath she said and affirmed in a formal manner, in Court and outside, that she will not make known these revelations and visions to you, her Judges, even if her head should be cut off, or her body dismembered. “They shall not drag it from my mouth,” she hath said, “neither the sign that God revealed to me, nor the means whereby I knew that this sign came to me from God.”

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“As to revealing the sign and the other things, of which you speak, I may well have said I will not reveal them. I add, to what I before acknowledged that I should have said I would not reveal it without leave from Our Lord.”[261]

ARTICLE XXXII. By this refusal to make known these pretended revelations, you may and should presume strongly that the revelations and visions of Jeanne, if she had them always, came to her from lying and evil spirits rather than from good. And all the world may take it for certain, considering her cruelty, her pride, her dress, her actions, her lies, the contradictions here given in various Articles, that all these together constitute in this respect the most powerful of presumptions, both of law and right.

“What have you to say on this Article?”

“I did it by revelation, from Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; and I will maintain it even unto death. If I put on my letters the names ‘Jhésus Maria,’ it was because I was advised to do so by certain persons of my party; sometimes I used these names, sometimes not. As to that passage in my answer of which you remind me, ‘All that I did, I did by the counsel of Our Lord,’ it should be completed thus: ‘All that I did _well_.’”

“Did you do well or ill to advance on La Charité?”

“If it were ill done, it will be confessed.”

“Did you do well to advance on Paris?”

“The gentlemen of France wished to advance on Paris. In doing this, it seems to me they did their duty in going against their enemies.”

ARTICLE XXXIII. Jeanne hath presumptuously and audaciously boasted, and doth still boast, of knowing the future and of having foreseen the past, of knowing things that are in the present, but hidden or unknown; all which, an attribute of the Deity, she claims for herself, a simple and ignorant creature.

“What have you to say on this Article?”