Chapter X: Part 10

‘O duke! what reply canst thou make to this? Shouldst thou say, that thou didst cause him to be put to death on account of the wickedness which thou hast by thy command caused to be imputed to him,—say, then, why thou enteredst into any alliance or bonds of friendship with such an infamous traitor as thou hast had him painted. Thou knowest, that loyal men will never form a friendship with traitors. Thou sayest, that the duke of Orleans was a traitor to his king: thou therefore makest thyself a traitor by the act of forming an alliance with him.

‘Thou hast accused my lord of Orleans of having made an alliance with Henry of Lancaster: what wilt thou say to the alliances thou thyself afterward enteredst into with the duke of Orleans. If these things had happened after thy alliance with my late lord, thou wouldst have had some colour to have broken with him, although even this would have been barely sufficient; but thou knowest well that thou hast not alledged any thing against him, in thy scandalous libel, posterior to these alliances.

‘O, abominable treason! what can be offered in thy excuse? O ye knights, who consider honour as your judge! God will never suffer you to approve of such deeds.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! thou hast frequently visited the duke of Orleans, when alive: thou hast eaten and drank with him: thou hast even taken spices out of the same dish with him, in token of friendship. In short, on the Tuesday preceding his death, he most kindly invited thee to dine with him the Sunday following, which thou promisedst to do in the presence of my lord of Berry, now here. Assuredly my lord of Orleans might have quoted the words of JESUS CHRIST to the traitor Judas, ‘Qui mittit manum mecum in paropside, hic me tradet.’

‘O, my lords! weigh well this treason, and apply a remedy to it. Consider how strongly the faith and loyalty of chivalry should be guarded and the words of Vegetius, when speaking of chivalry, ‘Milites jurata sua omnia custodiant.’ To the observance of this, all princes are bound,—for he who shall disgrace his loyalty or honour is unworthy of being called a knight.

‘My fourth argument is founded on this consideration, that the death of my late lord, the duke of Orleans, was damnable and disloyal,—and any one who should maintain or assert the contrary would not be a good Christian. We see that the secular justice allows to malefactors time for repentance,—but thou, cruel adversary! thou hast caused my lord so suddenly to be put to death that, inasmuch as in thee lay, he died without repenting of his sins. It seems, therefore, that thou hast exerted all thy influence to procure the eternal damnation of his soul when thou destroyedst his body; and most assuredly thou wilt find great difficulty to make thy peace with God,—for insomuch as thou believest him the greater sinner, so much the more need had he, as thou mayst suppose, of a fuller and longer repentance.—It follows, then, that thou hast deprived him, to the utmost of thy power, of any possibility of repentance,—and consequently thy sin becomes the more grievous and inexcuseable, more especially as my lord was no way expecting to die when he was thus suddenly and cruelly cut off.—Nevertheless, I trust that our Lord may have granted that he died in his grace; and I the more readily believe it, inasmuch as, a short time before this sad event, he had most devoutly confessed himself.

‘I repeat, that it is the deed of a wicked Christian thus to put a man to death; and whoever may say the contrary, or maintain that it is meritorious, I tell him, that he speaks wickedly and erroneously, according to the theologians.

‘Hear, my lords, and consider the conduct of our adversary after the death of the duke of Orleans,—how on the Thursday following his murder, clothed in black, and with tears and every sign of grief, he accompanied the dead body from the church of the Guillemins to that of the Celestins! Weigh well, my lords, this treachery and dissimulation! O Lord God, what tears and groans!!! O, Earth! how couldst thou bear such wickedness? Open thy mouth, and swallow up all who commit such dreadful sins.

‘Recollect, that on the ensuing Friday, at the hôtel of the duke of Berry, in his presence and in that of the king of Sicily, our adversary advanced towards the servants of the late duke of Orleans, entreating them to make every inquiry after the author of this murder, and begging them to recommend him to the duchess of Orleans and to her children: then the three noble persons having conferred together, the duke of Berry declared the request was proper, and that they would exert themselves as much as possible to discover the person who had committed this atrocious act.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! thou promisedst to do this, by the mouth of my lord of Berry, whereas thou didst the worst thou could; for, not satisfied with having caused the murder of his body, thou seekest to destroy the reputation of the defunct. Thou promisedst to seek most diligently after the murderer, while thou knewest it was thyself that wast the criminal.

‘Now, my lords, consider well, that after a resolution had been taken to seek after the author of this crime, our adversary, the duke of Burgundy, conscious of his guilt, confessed that it was he who had caused the death of the duke of Orleans. When he made this confession on his knees to the king and my lord the duke of Berry, he affirmed, that what he had done was by the instigation of the devil; and certainly in this instance he spoke the truth, for he was urged to it by jealousy and ambition.

‘O, my lords! weigh well this confession, and how our adversary contradicts himself,—for when he first confessed his guilt, he said he had been instigated to it by the devil; but afterward he commands it to be argued, that he committed so atrocious a deed legally and justifiably. If he feel no shame for his wickedness, he ought at least to be sensible of his thus meanly contradicting himself. Consider also, that he was desirous of concealing his crime; and God knows, that if his deed had been of that worth as has been advanced for him, he would have gloried in having so done, and not have wished to remain undiscovered as the perpetrator. And why did he own his guilt? Because it could no longer be concealed. That this was the cause is apparent; for when he perceived that it must be known, he fled most precipitately from Paris, like to one in despair. He might have said, with Judas the traitor, ‘Peccavi tradens sanguinem justum.’

‘O Philip, duke of Burgundy! wert thou now alive, thou wouldst not have approved the conduct of our adversary, but wouldst have said thy son had degenerated. Thou wert surnamed The Bold,—but he was always fearful and suspicious, consequently a traitor. Thou mightst have truly applied to him what is written in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, ‘Cur temptavit sathanas cor tuum mentiri te Spiritui Sancto? non es mentitus hominibus sed Deo.’

‘My fifth argument is grounded on the falsehood of the declarations of our opponent, that he had caused the death of the duke of Orleans with the purest intentions; for, on the contrary, he committed this crime through lust of power, and to gain greater authority over the kingdom, and also to possess himself of the royal treasury, that he might more largely gratify and increase his dependants. This is evident from the conduct of our adversary before and after the death of the duke of Orleans.

‘It is a truth, that shortly after the death of his father the duke of Burgundy, he exerted himself to the utmost to obtain similar power in this realm, and with the same pensions and authority as his late father had enjoyed. But this was not granted to him, because his father had been uncle to the king, and was a man of great prudence and understanding, qualities not possessed by our adversary.

‘Having been disappointed, he instantly began to practise how he could better obtain his object; and for this end, prior to the death of the duke of Orleans, he caused reports to be circulated throughout the kingdom of his affection to the public weal, and that he alone was the fittest person to govern it. When he perceived, that in spite of his fictions, the duke of Orleans still possessed the authority he was panting for, because he was the son of a king, and the only brother to the king, and more fit for the government than the duke of Burgundy,—seeing, therefore, all his plans frustrated, he conspired to take away the life of the duke of Orleans, expecting that when he should be made away with, no other person would dare to dispute his having the sole government of the kingdom.

‘This is the principal cause of so barbarous a murder, notwithstanding the arguments that have been urged in his excuse, as is well known to all. His conduct, likewise, after the death of my late lord of Orleans, confirms it; for instantly, on his return to Paris, he began to push forward those that were his dependants and supporters, by depriving many valiant and deserving men of places which they held under the king, without any other cause but that they had been appointed to them by my lord of Orleans, as others had been, and giving their offices to such as he pleased, in order to gain more authority and power. He also endeavoured to make all placemen, particularly those who had the management of the royal treasury, subservient to him, that they might not refuse him any thing.

‘Our adversary was most anxious to have the government of the treasury, and obtained from it the sum of two hundred thousand livres, by warrants thereon, or otherwise, great part of which he distributed among his people, as is well known to the clerks of the treasury; and this was his principal object in putting to death his rival in power, my late lord of Orleans, namely, covetousness of the king’s money, and to give it away and enrich his followers. It appears, therefore, that covetousness and pride have been the springs of his actions; but, please God, he shall not in this instance profit from them,—and the words of Job, in his seventh chapter, shall be verified, ‘Cum habuerit quod cupierit, possidere non poterit.’

‘My sixth and last argument is founded on the conduct of our adversary, who, not satisfied with having murdered the late duke of Orleans, attempts, in conjunction with his followers, to deprive him of his good fame and renown, by defamatory libels, wherein he groundlessly and falsely charges him with the crimes of divine and human high treason, of which he was perfectly innocent, as has been, and shall be again demonstrated.

‘It may be said, that this justification is even more scandalous than the fact itself; for to fall into sin is the lot of humanity, but obstinately to persevere in it is diabolical. And this manner of justifying murder is the defence of his own sin, and daring to do what God hates: he follows not the example of David when he said, ‘Non declines cor meum in verba maliciæ ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis.’

‘I come now to my third division, in which I shall reply to the defamatory libel, and to the accusations therein, that were made by our adversary against the character of my late lord of Orleans. I may fairly quote the words of the Psalmist, on the part of my late lord, ‘Judica me Domine secundum justitiam meam, et secundum innocentiam meam super me.’ This request the Psalmist makes to God, and such a request, O king! does the duchess of Orleans now make to thee, as she requires nothing but judgment and justice. May it please thee to listen to the answers of my lady of Orleans to the six charges brought against her late lord, and thou wilt then judge whether he has not been unjustly accused.

‘The first charge brought against the late duke of Orleans by the advocate of the duke of Burgundy is, That during his lifetime he committed the crime of high treason in the highest degree, by his idolatrous conduct in witchcrafts and sorceries, contrary to the Christian faith and the honour of God. It is true, that in regard to this accusation, the advocate did not pursue it very far, saying, that the judgment of such crimes belonged to God, the sovereign Lord,—meaning, that no human judge was competent to it.

‘When making this charge, he spoke of an apostate monk and several sorcerers, in whom my late lord of Orleans put confidence, according to his allegations. I shall scarcely offer any reply to this accusation, but, in like manner as he has done, refer the whole to the judgment of God. It will be sufficient for me to show, in the first place, That my late lord of Orleans was a good and true Christian; that he never committed any sorceries or idolatries, nor ever departed from the faith of JESUS CHRIST.

‘I may likewise add, That from his youth upward, he was of a religious turn of mind,—for, notwithstanding his fondness for amusements, his reliance was in God, to whom he very often confessed himself. Nay, the very Saturday preceding his death, he had most devoutly confessed himself, with many signs of contrition, declaring he would not longer follow youthful pastimes, but solely devote himself to the service of God, and to that of the public welfare. That I may not be suspected of uttering falsehoods, many religious as well as others, are now alive, to whom he had made such declarations; and, without saying more, let his uncle the duke of Bourbon be heard, who knows what promises he made to God,—for a little before his decease, he assured him, that henceforward his conduct should be such as to merit the approbation of God and mankind, and that all the inhabitants of this kingdom should be bound to pray for him.

‘I know not if our adversary had heard of these wise declarations, or whether he was afraid of their being effected, as they were quite in opposition to his wish for the government; for he well knew that if my lord of Orleans should act as he had said he would, his authority in the kingdom would have been very small indeed. It may therefore be presumed, it was for this that he was so eager to have my lord of Orleans put to death.

‘O, Lord God! thou knowest how well he was inclined toward thee at the time of his being murdered, which gives me confidence in his salvation; for the holy Scripture says, ‘Justus si morte præoccupatus fuerit in refrigerio erit.’ It is, however, evident, that our adversary did all he could to destroy his soul, and afterward heard mass most devoutly in appearance, putting what had passed out of his thoughts, and daily saying his canonical prayers.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! why hast thou done all this through hypocrisy and fiction? Who has revealed to thee the secrets of hearts? and who has made thee the judge of men’s thoughts? Thou resemblest the Pharisees, who called CHRIST a deceiver and possest of a devil! Thou knowest, that even angels are ignorant of the secrets of our hearts, and yet thou pretendest to judge them! O! how well does the Psalmist exclaim, ‘Tu solus es scrutans renes et corda!’

‘It is notorious, that my late lord founded many masses and private chapels, doing much service to the church: let then his last will, so devoutly written, be considered with what I have before said, and any one may decide whether he was an idolater or sorcerer. It is true, indeed, that the advocate for our adversary refers to the judgment of God all that respects divine high treason, saying that he will not make this an especial charge against the late duke of Orleans.

‘But I now ask why he thus acts? Because he knows the charge is groundless, and that in many places human judges may and do punish sorcerers and idolaters according to their power; and that numbers have for these crimes been condemned to death, because they were bad Christians, and that from such errors of the faith proceed heresies. It is written in the second book of Kings, that Josias killed and extirpated diviners and sorcerers; and in the tenth chapter of Zacharias, ‘Divini viderunt mendacium et somniatores locuti sunt frustra.’ It is also written in the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, ‘Ne declinetis ad magos, nec ab ariolis aliquid sciscitemini.’

‘The reason why the advocate passed so rapidly over this charge was, that he knew nothing against my lord of Orleans that could prove him a bad Christian, or that he was not firm in his belief of religion. O, lord king! my lady of Orleans supplicates thee, that the words of Job, in the twenty-second chapter, may be verified,—‘Salvabitur innocens in munditia manuum suarum.’

‘The second accusation was, That my lord of Orleans favoured the schism in the church, by affording aid to Pietro della Luna, formerly called Pope Benedict, and was consequently guilty of high treason in the second degree. In reply, I say, that my lord of Orleans gave no aid nor showed any favour, but with the laudable end of making an honourable peace in the church, and particularly when he considered Benedict as the true pope. It is well known, that our obedience to the church would have been brought about more to our honour if Pietro della Luna had done his duty, by yielding up his claims, for the union of the church, than by violently supporting them. My lord of Orleans may have said, it will be better to wait a little, for the above Pietro to send in his cession, than by hurrying make affairs worse. In this there could not be any evil intentions; for it is a fact, that he was anxious for the union of the church, and believed firmly that Pietro della Luna was willing to abdicate his claims, whenever the roman pontiff should be ready to do the same.

‘Many are now living who have heard the duke swear, that if he knew Pietro della Luna was unwilling to yield up his pretensions, when the other pope should resign his, he would be the bitterest enemy he had in the world; and should it be thought necessary, they are ready to prove it. Now let us consider what advantage the division of the church could be of to him. He was wise enough to see all the evils that flowed from it, and not so weak as to found confidence on a man so old as Pietro della Luna. He knew, besides, that by the union of the church more spiritual and temporal advantages would fall to the share of himself and friends, without comparison, than if the schism were continued.

‘To show more evidently the earnest desire my lord of Orleans had for an union of the church, I will mention a proposal which he made to the university of Paris three weeks before his death. When he perceived that the roman pontiff would neither come to Genoa nor Savoy, nor accept as hostages those who had been presented to him by the mareschal de Boucicaut, and that nothing else prevented the union of the church, for Pietro della Luna was ready to go to either of these places, he addressed the following speech to the members of the university: ‘O rector, and you all my good friends! see I pray ye that we may shortly, through the grace of God, restore peace to the church, and may give satisfactory security, that the roman pope may come to Genoa. I have offered him the choice of one of my sons, as his hostage, and am ready to send him, at my own expense, to Venice, or elsewhere. Write, therefore, such letters as you shall think proper to him, and I will sign them. Tell what I have said to the whole university, and bring me their opinions on it.’

‘The heads of the university thanked him very warmly for his offer,—adding, that he could not make a more generous proposal, and that he had demonstrated by it the affection he bore to the church. There are persons still living whom he had ordered to go to Rome and Venice to give notice of the offer he had made. Now, my lords, could he have done more than to give his own flesh and blood for an hostage? And our witnesses of this act are neither weak nor ignorant persons, but doctors and professors of theology.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! this will show to thee how false has been thy accusation; and on this charge thou oughtest to have been silent, knowing as thou must how anxious thou wert to acquire the friendship of Pietro della Luna. At the time when Pietro was in the greatest disgrace, thou didst write and send to him to obtain bishopricks and other preferments for thy dependants; and thy messengers were not pages nor common persons, but the guardian of thy soul, namely, thy confessor, that he might the more clearly and securely explain thy meaning.

‘It was also said, that my lord of Orleans consented to the malicious excommunication sent by Pietro della Luna to induce the king to continue his obedience to him. Now it is quite clear that this wicked excommunication carries no effect against Pietro della Luna, except in case the king should become disobedient, and that he had given his consent to the said excommunication, which, as has been said, was to have no effect, except in case of renunciation of allegiance or disobedience. It is certain that Pietro della Luna was of a temper obstinate enough to do such things, and that he acted thus without consulting any one, and as certain that my lord of Orleans was unfavourable to this act,—for it was not put in force until after his death.

‘Weigh, at the same time, my lords, the misconduct of our adversary, and the innocence of the duke of Orleans, who may say with the Psalmist, ‘Os peccatoris et os dolosi super me apertum est, locuti sunt adversum me lingua dolosa, et sermonibus odii circumdederunt me.’

‘The third charge of our adversary is, that my late lord of Orleans practised different means to cause the death of his prince and lord, the king of France: first, as it is said, by sorceries, witchcrafts and superstitions;—secondly, by poisons;—thirdly, by fire, water, or other violent injections, which consequently inculpates my lord of Orleans in the crime of human high treason, in the person of the king our lord.

‘In regard to the first part of the charge relative to poison, supposed to be administered by a monk under the forms of a sword, a buckler, a ring, or a wand,—and that, to accomplish this, my lord of Orleans had sent for this monk, a knight, an esquire and a varlet, to whom, our adversary says, he gave large sums of money,—all this I deny as absolute falsehoods, for my said lord of Orleans never consented to sorceries or such forbidden deeds.

‘Should this monk have done such sorceries, it was no way through the exhortation of my lord of Orleans, nor ought this to have been so lightly alledged against him,—for there was a long trial held of this monk before the ministers of the king, from whom the truth may be known. It was then discovered by the confession of the monk, that my lord had forbidden him to use any magic arts that would any way prove to the prejudice of the king’s person; and God knows, if there had been any truth in the charge, it would not have been concealed until after my lord’s death.

‘By this, the falsehood of the accusation is evident; and although my foresaid lord may have at times held some conversation with this monk, let it be remembered that he was then young, not more than eighteen years old, and that princes of that age are frequently deceived by artful talkers, to gain money from them.

‘With respect to the bone wrapped up in a small linen bag which he wore between his shirt and skin, as our adversary says, until it was torn from him by a knight, whom he hated ever after, and continued to persecute until he had ruined him in his fortune, and procured his banishment out of the realm,—this is most assuredly false; for the knight was banished the kingdom by sentence of the courts of justice for a very notorious cause, and this odious circumstance was never mentioned but by this knight who published it, and who, according to our adversary, was suspected of hatred to the duke of Orleans, and consequently not a competent witness to be admitted against the defunct.

‘Consider, my lords, what falsehoods are contained in the accusations of our adversary, and that such as read his libel must be deceived. It behoves, therefore, the reverend professors of theology to correct it as soon as possible, for they know that such libels ought not to be written nor published; but the most marvellous circumstance of all is, that this libel and these falsehoods have been suffered and made public by a theologian in the presence of the king’s majesty.

‘We are at present in a similar situation to that in which Saint Austin represents the companion of the physician and astrologer disputing on twin children, the one fat and the other lean. The astrologer attributing the difference to the ascendancy of the stars,—the physician declaring, that the fat one received the soul first, and, being the strongest, sucked nearly the whole of the food,—which ought to be believed? The physician, certainly, as St Austin says. We, in like manner, may give greater credit to the faculty of medicine in this manner than to the faculty of theology: the professor has very foolishly argued his case.

‘O, most merciful God! apply a remedy to this, for thou seest theologians affirm that sorcerers may succeed in their incantations; and it is erring against the holy Scriptures to say, that sorcerers are others than liars. And the wise Solomon makes this answer to those who asserted similar errors, in the 33d chapter of Ecclesiasticus,—‘Quod divinatio erroris, et arguta mendacia et somnia maleficiorum vanitas est.’ Thomas Aquinas quotes this authority to prove that sorcerers cannot succeed.

‘O, thou university of Paris! please to correct thyself; for such absurd sciences are not only forbidden, as being contrary to the honour of God, but as containing nothing true, which is confirmed by the workers of magic.

‘Ovid says, in his book, ‘De Remedia Amoris,’

‘Fallitur Hermionæ si quis mala pabula terræ:
Et magicas artes posse juvare putat.’

‘Master John de Bar, who was very expert in this accursed art, and who was burnt, with all his books, declared, at his last confession, that the devil never appeared to him, and that his invocations and sorceries never succeeded, although many said the contrary. He added, that he had practised this art to obtain money from persons of high rank. It is therefore most strange to charge the duke of Orleans with such vain and foolish sorceries, as there never was a man who hated them more, or who persecuted such as practised them with greater rigour.

‘Every one knows that my late lord was the principal cause of the trial of John de Bar and of two augustan friars, before the king’s council and clergy summoned for this purpose, and were in consequence executed for their evil deeds.

‘With regard to what the advocate for our opponent says, that the late lord of Milan only gave his daughter to the duke of Orleans in the hope of her being queen of France; and that, on her taking leave of him, he should say, ‘Adieu! my child: I never wish to see thee again but as queen of France.’ This is absolutely false; for my lord of Milan was in treaty with the duke of Gueldres, brother to the king of the Romans, to marry his daughter: ambassadors were even on their road to Milan to conclude the match, when Bertrand Gaad, at that time tutor to the count de Vertus, was sent by the king and the dukes of Berry and Burgundy, (whose soul may God receive!) to propose the alliance of the duke of Orleans.

‘The lord of Milan, preferring the honour of a connexion with France, consented to give his daughter to the duke of Orleans, ceased to treat with the duke of Gueldres, and recalled the ambassadors he had sent to him. As to the words the lord of Milan has been supposed to address to his daughter on her taking leave of him, they are also false,—for he left Pavia without seeing or speaking to her, because he could not have done either without weeping. The advocate for our adversary utters another falsehood, when he says, that the lord of Milan expressed his astonishment to a french knight, on his telling him the king of France was in good health, replying, ‘Thou sayest, that the king of France is in good health: how can that possibly be?’ My lord of Milan is too reserved ever to have held such a conversation; and it is well known to many now alive, that my lord of Milan loved the king of France above all other princes, and was very much attached to his family. This he always testified by the honours and presents he lavished on ambassadors and nobles of France, who travelled through his country, all from his respect to the king and his royal blood.

‘With regard to the history of that gallant man, sir Philip de Mezieres, whom the advocate has most scandalously defamed,—it is true, that when sir Philip came from Cyprus, king Charles, whom God pardon! retained him, and made him his chamberlain. After the death of the king, sir Philip put on the humble dress of a monk, in the church of the Celestins, where he devoutly remained until his death. The late duke of Burgundy had a friendship for the lord of Milan, and, perceiving sir Philip to be a man of ability and prowess, sent him to Milan to propose a croisade to the holy land: the lord of Milan received him honourably, and willingly listened to all he had to say.

‘Before that time, sir Philip had never resided in Milan, nor had any connexion with the lord Bernabo, uncle to the present lord. Sir Philip had left Milan very long before any mention was made of the marriage of the duke of Orleans with the present duchess, which clearly proves how ill founded have been the imputations of our adversary.

‘Another infamous falsehood has been boldly advanced, namely, that my lord of Orleans, seeing he could not compass the king’s death by sorceries, practised other means to accomplish it, that he might succeed to the crown of France, by promising to one man four thousand francs, to another five thousand, to make up and administer different poisons,—and that some accepted his offers, and others refused them. Most assuredly, if there had been such loyal persons as to refuse these great sums of money, they would not have hesitated to reveal the matter, that it might be inquired into and punished; but as they have not done so, we may safely conclude the assertion is false.

‘Our adversary has alledged, that at a dinner at the queen’s palace, the duke of Orleans threw some powder over the king’s dish. This may be proved to be false, for no mention was made during the dinner of any such act,—for it is clear, that if the queen had observed any thing of the sort at her dinner, she would have denounced it to the servants and family of the king, otherwise she would not have been loyal.

‘As to the story of the queen’s almoner, which our adversary has brought forward,—namely, his falling down dead and losing his hair and nails,—it is notoriously false, for he lived five or six years after the time when he was supposed thus suddenly to die. I may therefore apply to our opponent the words of the prophet Jeremiah, in his seventh chapter, ‘Ecce vos confiditis in sermonibus mendacii, sed non proderunt vobis.’

‘Our adversary next advances, that my lord of Orleans, finding he could not destroy the king by poisons or sorceries, attempted to do it by fire and other means; that my lord of Orleans, in consequence, proposed a masquerade dance of persons dressed as savages, in cloth covered with pitch and tow, and other inflammable materials,—among the number of whom was the king,—and that the duke of Orleans caused his dress to be made too tight, that he might be excused from being of the party. Our adversary adds, that when one of the king’s servants was warning him of the danger that might ensue from such dresses, the duke of Orleans was greatly enraged and gave him much abusive language: in short, that my lord of Orleans set fire to the king’s dress, who was in the utmost peril of death, had not God, and certain ladies by their exertions, prevented it.—Now, in answer to this heavy charge, I shall reply, that my lord of Orleans did not provide the dresses, nor could he then have known where to have sought for them.

‘The dukes of Berry and Burgundy, lately deceased, well knew who were the proposers of this dance, and that it was not the duke of Orleans. Had he been the author of it, he would not have escaped death, or very great blame, considering the commotion it caused, for he had then scarcely any power. As to what our adversary says, that the dress of the duke of Orleans was purposely made too tight, there is not the smallest appearance of truth in it, for at that time the duke was the thinnest of the company.

‘It is true, that my lord of Orleans and the lord Philip de Bar had gone before the commencement of this ball to visit the lady of Clermont, who had not come to the wedding held at the hôtel de St Pol, for which this entertainment was given, and on their return they found all the dresses had been made use of. This was the sole cause why the duke of Orleans was not dressed to make one of the party.

‘It is an infamous lie to say, as our opponent has done, that the duke of Orleans wished to burn the king our lord; for the duke and the lord Philip de Bar intended dressing themselves in these clothes, and, without thinking or intending any ill, they both told Peter de Navarre to set fire to the dresses of the savages, that when on fire they might run among the ladies to frighten them. Peter de Navarre is living, and he can prove the truth of this to the king. Let us suppose, that in this youthful frolic, my lord of Orleans should have set fire to one of the dresses, as he had ordered the same to be done to all, it is not credible that it could have been done through malice or evil intentions. It is then apparent, that what our adversary has asserted is a lie; and I comfort myself with the words of the prophet,—‘Perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium,’—and in the 20th chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui profert mendacia peribit.’

‘As to the alliances which our opponent says the duke of Orleans entered into with Henry of Lancaster, at present calling himself king of England, to the prejudice of the king and realm, and colouring his assertion by adding, that Richard, late king of England, had assured the king of France, that his infirmities were solely owing to the machinations of the dukes of Milan and Orleans,—I answer, that they are wicked falsehoods; for when Henry of Lancaster came to France, he was most honourably received by the princes of the royal family as their relation, and frequented the company of the duke of Orleans and others of the blood royal as of their kindred, when, as a friend to the king, he formed an alliance with the duke of Orleans publicly, and in the presence of the king and princes of the blood, which at the time was considered as perfectly lawful, and for the good of the kingdom. This plainly shows, that my lord of Orleans had made no alliance against king Richard; but what is more, at the treaty of marriage of the king’s daughter, now duchess of Orleans, with king Richard, the duke of Orleans and king Richard formed an alliance similar to that which the latter had formed with the king of France.

‘After this, my lord of Orleans went to Calais, where he was most amicably received by king Richard as a very dear brother. In addition, when king Richard died, the duke of Orleans showed great grief for it, and made an enemy of king Henry of Lancaster, by the challenges he sent him, accusing him of being guilty of the crime of high treason against his sovereign lord king Richard, offering to fight the said king Henry, in revenge for the death of Richard, either in single combat, or with any number of persons he might choose.

‘These and many more circumstances can be brought forward to prove that my lord of Orleans had a strong affection for king Richard, from his alliance by marriage with the king of France, and that he hated king Henry for having laid hands on his sovereign.

‘There is not more truth in what our adversary has advanced, that my lord of Orleans, when with Pietro della Luna, exerted himself to obtain bulls to the prejudice of the king and his family, and on this account always favoured the said Pietro; for at that time my lord of Orleans had procured with this Pietro, then called Benedict, a very advantageous alliance for the king of France, by which he engaged to support the king and his family by every means in his power, as may be seen in the bulls issued to this effect. It is therefore very extraordinary, that any man endowed with common sense should have asserted publicly things that are evidently false.

‘As to what our adversary says, that my lord of Orleans supported Pietro della Luna, I have before answered it; and my lord proposed himself, that if the two rival popes did not speedily agree to send commissioners to the council, France should withdraw itself from their obedience.

‘This was more displeasing to Pietro della Luna than any thing that had been done in this kingdom relative to church-affairs, and is not a sign that my lord of Orleans was desirous of retarding an union of the church in favour of Pietro della Luna. It is therefore evident, that the duke of Orleans is innocent of the charges that have been brought against him.

‘O, lord king! may it please thee to guard his innocence by means of thy justice, according as it is written in the 13th chapter of Job, ‘Justitia custodit innocentis viam.’

‘The fourth accusation of our adversary is, That for the space of three whole years my lord of Orleans, by his artful and deceitful tales, and advice to the queen, attempted to prevail on her to quit the kingdom, with her children, and reside in the county of Luxembourg, that he might enjoy greater power in the government of the realm. So far is this charge from being true, that my lord of Orleans did every thing in his power to honour and support the queen during the melancholy illness of the king, of which it does not become me to say more, for, thanks to God, she is now present, and knows full well the truth of this, and which she may more fully declare whenever it may be her good pleasure so to do. I do not, however, know that she made any complaints on this subject to our adversary, or to any other persons. I believe the contrary, to this charge of our opponent, will be found to be the truth; and that it has been purposely brought forward to defame the reputation of the deceased.

‘The fifth accusation is, That my lord of Orleans committed the crime of high treason in the third degree, on the person of my lord the dauphin, whose soul may God pardon! by compassing his death by means of a poisoned apple given to a child, from whom one of the nurses of the children of the duke of Orleans took it by force, and gave it to one of the children of the duke of Orleans, and caused its death, as well as that of the dauphin, who also ate of it.

‘This is an absolute falsehood. True it is, that one of the duke of Orleans’ children died about the time when this fact was supposed to have taken place, of a bowel complaint, which was then very prevalent, and carried off many others. Let the physicians, master William le Boucher and master John de Beaumont, be examined, who visited this child, and they will declare the truth, that it did not die of poison.

‘Consider, my lords, the improbability of a nurse of the children of the duke of Orleans daring to give an apple or pear to any of them without the express orders of the duchess of Orleans; and that when the nurse went to these gardens with the child she was accompanied by several women of character, who would not have suffered her to give it an apple, or any suchlike thing.

‘O most noble and well-beloved duke of Acquitaine! while young, learn to love justice, and act like Solomon. Consider the evils that may happen unless justice be observed; and if thou neglectest it, thou wilt not love thy brothers, for they will be in danger of death if the doctrines of our adversary be not checked. The prophet says, ‘Justitiæ Domini rectæ lætificantes corda.’

‘The sixth crime alledged against the duke of Orleans is, That he committed high treason in the fourth degree, by ruining the king in his finances, and by oppressing the people with intolerable taxes, and quartering large bodies of men at arms in various parts of the country. My lords, it is very astonishing that our adversary should have made this charge; for it is notorious to every one, that these taxes were not levied in this kingdom for its own concerns, nor were they for the profit of the duke of Orleans: they were proposed with great deliberation of the king, the princes of his blood, and his council, for the benefit of our adversary himself, in his expedition to Hungary, and for the payment of the ransom of himself and his army. This was the cause of such heavy taxes being raised throughout the kingdom, and of immense sums of money being sent to Turkey, and other distant places, to the irreparable loss of the country.

‘When our adversary charges the duke of Orleans with having taken four thousand francs from the tower of the palace, and one hundred thousand from the castle of Melun,—I reply, that it is false: if any sums of money were in the tower of the palace, they were distributed according to orders from the king. In regard to the hundred thousand francs in the castle of Melun, it is well known that the queen and the duke of Orleans went thither to amuse themselves,—during which time, our adversary very improperly came to Paris with a large body of men at arms, and forced the duke of Acquitaine to return thither, instead of going, as he intended, to join his mother the queen. He had collected this force of men at arms with the design of attacking the queen and the duke of Orleans in Melun, which, of course, made it necessary for her majesty to raise an army for her own defence, and for the security of the king and kingdom.

‘She was therefore advised to make use of the money in the castle of Melun for the pay of the men at arms, but my lord of Orleans never touched one penny of it; and when it came to the knowledge of the king, he was well satisfied that it had been so applied.

‘It therefore appears, that this sum of money was expended to oppose the damnable act of our adversary, and for no other cause. In regard to the men at arms said to have been kept on foot by my lord of Orleans, certainly some bodies of them, being quartered over the country, declared they were sent thither by command of the duke of Orleans, in order that no one might dare to molest them,—but they had no letters or commissions from him. On the contrary, he was greatly displeased at the evil acts they at times committed.

‘When their conduct was laid before the king and council, the duke of Orleans caused letters to be sent in the king’s name to all bailiffs and other officers throughout the realm, ordering them to assemble the nobles and gentlemen of the country to force those who committed such disgraceful acts to quit the kingdom, having first punished them for their wicked conduct.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! recollect the irreparable damages that have been done to many parts of this realm by the bodies of men at arms which thou hast introduced within it, many of whom were foreigners, who wasted the countries they passed through, and every one should feel compassion for events of so pitiable a nature: they can never be enough bewailed.

‘O, thou king of France! most excellent prince, deplore the death of thy only brother; for thou hast lost the most precious jewel in thy crown, which thy justice ought to avenge, if no other way be found.

‘O, thou most noble queen! weep for a prince who so greatly honoured thee, and whom thou hast seen so infamously murdered.

‘O thou, my most redoubted lord, duke of Acquitaine! lament that thou hast lost the most precious member of thy blood, council and state, which has caused thee to fall from peace into great tribulation.

‘O, thou duke of Berry! grieve that thou hast seen the brother of the king thy nephew thus disgracefully end his days, solely because he was brother to the king, and for no other reason.

‘O, duke of Brittany! thou hast lost the brother to thy duchess, who greatly loved thee.

‘O, thou duke of Bourbon! weep that thy friend is now buried under ground; and ye other princes! join in lamentations, for the way is now opened to put ye all to death most traitorously and unexpectedly.

‘Mourn, men and women, old and young, rich and poor! for the sweetness of peace and tranquillity is now torn from ye, by this assertion of the doctrine of assassinating princes, whence wars and destruction must fall upon you.

‘O, ye churchmen! deplore the loss of a prince who was much attached to you, and who greatly respected all who performed the divine service, from his love to God.

‘Ye clerks, and nobles of all degrees! consider how ye will henceforward act; for our opponent has deceived you by his false arguments, and caused you to favour his wickedness. But as ye are now aware of the murder committed on the person of the duke of Orleans, of the falsity and lies published in our adversary’s defamatory libel, and consequently of the innocence of my lord of Orleans,—should ye, from this time forth, in any way support the party of our adversary, know that it will be treason against the king, and you will then incur the danger of losing your lives and fortunes, as usual in such cases.

‘Understand then, princes and men of all degrees, that ye are bounden to assist in maintaining the laws against the duke of Burgundy, who, by this murderous act, has usurped the power and authority of the king and his sons, and has deprived them of great aid and consolation; for he has brought the commonweal into grievous tribulation by shamelessly violating the wholesome statutes in vindicating his offence against nobility, kindred, oaths, alliances and assurances,—against God and all his saints. This mischief cannot be amended except by the laws. To obtain this reparation, my lady of Orleans and her children are now come before thee, O lord king! and the princes of thy royal blood, supplicating you all to weigh well the injury that has been done to them, and to make them amends in the manner required by her council, or in any other way, so that it may be publicly known that her lord was cruelly murdered, and unjustly and falsely accused and defamed. By doing this, you will perform your duty as you are bounden to do, and acquire eternal life, as it is written in the 21st chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui sequitur justitiam inveniet vitam et gloriam,’—which may God, who reigns and lives for ever and ever, grant. Amen.’

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

AT THE HAFOD PRESS,
BY JA. HENDERSON.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

Footnote 1:

These deeds, and the greater part of others quoted in these memoirs,
are preserved in the Chartulary of Cambray. Extracts from them were
communicated by M. Mutte, dean of Cambray, to M. de Foncemagne, who
lent, them to M. Dacier.

Footnote 2:

They are preserved in MS. by the regular canons of St Aubert in
Cambray.

Footnote 3:

‘This extract was published by M. Villaret in the xiith vol. of his
‘Histoire de France,’ edition in 12mo. page 119.’

Footnote 4:

‘The text of Monstrelet is _Pâques Communiaux_. This expression has
seemed to some learned men to be equally applicable to Palm as to
Easter Sunday. M. Secousse, in a note on these words, which he has
added to page 480 of the ixth volume of Ordinances, reports both
opinions, without deciding on either. But the sense is absolutely
determined as to Easter-day in this passage of Monstrelet, and in a
paper quoted by du Chesne, among the proofs to the genealogy of the
house of Montmorenci, p. 224. It is a receipt from Anthony de
Waevrans, esquire, châtelain of Lille, with this date,—‘the 2d of
April, on the vigil of _Pâques communiaux avant la cierge benit_, in
the year 1490.’ The circumstance of the paschal taper clearly shows it
to have been written on holy Saturday, which fell that year on the 2d
of April, since Easter-day of 1491 was on the 3d of the same
month.—See l’Art de Verifier les Dates.’

Footnote 5:

Essais de Montaigne, liv. xi. chap. 10.

Footnote 6:

I have a copy of these corrections, which are introduced either into
the body of the text or at the bottom of the page.

Footnote 7:

‘More slobbering than a mustard pot;’ but Cotgrave translates this,
‘Foaming at the mouth like a boar.’

Footnote 8:

‘Having compared these different chronicles, underneath is the result.

The truces between England and France,
from the Grandes Chroniques.

Measures taken by the king of France
relative to the troubles in the
church, by the election of the duke
of Savoy to the popedom, Ditto.

Continuation of the same subject, Ditto.

Taking of Fougeres, Ditto, and in Jean Chartier.

Rebellion in London, Ditto. Ditto.

Capture of Pont de l’Arche, &c. Ditto. Ditto.

Events of War, Ditto. Ditto.

From page 11. to page 23. in the
original, Ditto.

From page 141. to page 157. Ditto.

With this difference, that the continuator of Monstrelet omits to
report the treaties of surrender of many towns, and that he
sometimes inverts the order of events.

From page 29. to page 35. from the Grandes Chroniques.

158. 164. Ditto.

35. 36. Do. but somewhat abridged.

36. 38. Ditto.

165. 171. Ditto.

38. 40. Ditto.

40. Chronicles of Arras.’

Footnote 9:

From chapter ccxvii to ccxxxvi in the translation, third volume, 4to.

Footnote 10:

‘The capture of Sandwich by the French has been twice told; and also
the account of the embassy from Hungary,—the duke of Burgundy’s entry
into Ghent,—the proceedings against the duke of Alençon,—the account
of what passed at the funeral of king Charles VII.’

Footnote 11:

‘The copy of this chronicle, whence D. Berthod made his extract, is
(or perhaps rather was) in the royal library at Brussels. Pere le Long
and M. de Fontette notice another copy in the abbey of St Waast at
Arras. This must be the original, for D. Berthod told me, that the one
at Brussels was a copy.’

Footnote 12:

‘Vol. xvi. of the Memoires de l’Académie, page 251.’

Footnote 13:

See his preface at the head of the first volume, page 7.

Footnote 14:

Epistola plurium doctorum e societate Sorbonicâ ad illustrissimum
marchionem Scipionem Maffeium, de ratione indicis Sorbonici, seu
bibliothecæ alphabeticæ, quam adornant, &c. 1734.

Footnote 15: