Part 56 (1/2)
In a moment the fame of the French King's prophetess had been spread abroad throughout Christendom. While in temporal affairs the people were rending each other, in spiritual matters obedience to one common head made Europe one spiritual republic with one language and one doctrine, governed by councils. The spirit of the Church was all-pervading. In Italy, in Germany, the talk was all of the Sibyl of France and her prowess which was so intimately a.s.sociated with the Christian faith. In those days it was sometimes the custom of those who painted on the walls of monasteries to depict the Liberal Arts as three n.o.ble dames. Between her two sisters, Logic would be painted, seated on a lofty throne, wearing an antique turban, clothed in a sparkling robe, and bearing in one hand a scorpion, in the other a lizard, as a sign that her knowledge winds its way into the heart of the adversary's argument, and saves her from being herself entrapped.
At her feet, looking up to her, would be Aristotle, disputing and reckoning up his arguments on his fingers.[1311] This austere lady formed all her disciples in the same mould. In those days nothing was more despicable than singularity. Originality of mind did not then exist. The clerks who treated of the Maid all followed the same method, advanced the same arguments, and based them on the same texts, sacred and profane. Conformity could go no further. Their minds were identical, but not their hearts; it is the mind that argues, but the heart that decides. These scholastics, dryer than their parchment, were men, notwithstanding; they were swayed by sentiment, by pa.s.sion, by interests spiritual or temporal. While the Armagnac doctors were demonstrating that in the Maid's case reasons for belief were stronger than reasons for disbelief, the German or Italian masters, caring nought for the quarrel of the Dauphin of Viennois,[1312] remained in doubt, unmoved by either love or hatred.
[Footnote 1311: Cathedrale du Puy. E.F. Corpet, _Portraits des arts liberaux d'apres les ecrivains du moyen age_, in _Annales archeologiques_, 1857, vol. xvii, pp. 89, 103. Em. Male, _Les Arts liberaux dans la statuaire du moyen age_, in _Revue archeologique_, 1891.]
[Footnote 1312: Another name for Dauphine (W.S.).]
There was a doctor of theology, one Heinrich von Gorc.u.m, a professor at Cologne. As early as the month of June, 1429, he drew up a memorial concerning the Maid. In Germany, minds were divided as to whether the nature of the damsel were human or whether she were not rather a celestial being clothed in woman's form; as to whether her deeds proceeded from a human origin or had a supernatural source; and, if the latter, whether that source were good or bad. Meister Heinrich von Gorc.u.m wrote his treatise to present arguments from Holy Scripture on both sides, and he abstained from drawing any conclusion.[1313]
[Footnote 1313: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 411-421. Le P. Ayroles, _La Pucelle devant l'eglise de son temps_, vol. i, pp. 61-68.]
In Italy, the same doubts and the same uncertainty prevailed concerning the deeds of the Maid. Those there were who maintained that they were mere inventions. At Milan, it was disputed whether any credence could be placed in tidings from France. To discover the truth about them, the notables of the city resolved to despatch a Franciscan friar, Brother Antonio de Rho, a good humanist and a zealous preacher of moral purity.
And Giovanni Corsini, Senator of the duchy of Arezzo, impelled by a like curiosity, consulted a learned clerk of Milan, one Cosmo Raimondi of Cremona. The following is the gist of the learned Ciceronian's reply:
”Most n.o.ble lord, they say that G.o.d's choice of a shepherdess for the restoration of a kingdom to a prince, is a new thing. And yet we know that the shepherd David was anointed king. It is told how the Maid, at the head of a small company, defied a great army. The victory may be explained by an advantageous position and an unexpected attack. But supposing we refrain from saying that the enemy was surprised and that his courage forsook him, matters which are none the less possible, supposing we admit that there was a miracle: what is there astonis.h.i.+ng in that? Is it not still more wonderful that Samson should have slain so many Philistines with the jaw-bone of an a.s.s?
”The Maid is said to possess the power of revealing the future.
Remember the Sibyls, notably the Erythraean and the c.u.maean. They were heathens. Why should not a like power be granted to a Christian? This woman is a shepherdess. Jacob, when he kept Laban's flocks, conversed familiarly with G.o.d. To such examples and to such reasons, which incline me to give credence to the rumour, I add another reason derived from physical science. In treatises on astrology I have often read that by the favourable influence of the stars, certain men of lowly birth have become the equals of the highest princes and been regarded as men divine charged with a celestial mission. Guido da Forli, a clever astronomer, quotes a great number of such instances.
Wherefore I should not deem myself to be incurring any reproach if I believed that through the influence of the stars, the Maid has undertaken what is reported of her.”
At the conclusion of his arguments the clerk of Cremona says that, while not absolutely rejecting the reports concerning her, he does not consider them to be sufficiently proved.[1314]
[Footnote 1314: Le P. Ayroles, vol. iv, _La vierge guerriere_, pp. 240 _et seq._]
Jeanne maintained her resolution to go to Reims and take the King to his anointing.[1315] She did not stay to consider whether it would be better to wage war in Champagne than in Normandy. She did not know enough of the configuration of the country to decide such a question, and it is not likely that her saints and angels knew more of geography than she did. She was in haste to take the King to Reims for his anointing, because she believed it impossible for him to be king until he had been anointed.[1316] The idea of leading him to be anointed with the holy oil had come to her in her native village, long before the siege of Orleans.[1317] This inspiration was wholly of the spirit, and had nothing to do with the state of affairs created by the deliverance of Orleans and the victory of Patay.
[Footnote 1315: ”_Sed dicta puella semper fuit opinionis quod opportebat ire Remis._” _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 12 (evidence of Dunois).]
[Footnote 1316: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 20. _Journal du siege_, pp. 93, 94.]
[Footnote 1317: See _ante_, pp. 53 _et seq._]
The best course would have been to march straight on Paris after the 18th of June. The French were then only ninety miles from the great city, which at that juncture would not have thought of defending itself. Considering it as good as lost, the Regent shut himself up in the Fort of Vincennes.[1318] They had missed their opportunity. The French King's Councillors, Princes of the Blood, were deliberating, surprised by victory, not knowing what to do with it. Certain it is that not one of them thought of conquering, and that speedily, the whole inheritance of King Charles. The forces at their disposal, and the very conditions of the society in which they lived, rendered it impossible for them to conceive of such an undertaking. The lords of the Great Council were not like the poverty stricken monks, dreaming in their ruined cloisters[1319] of an age of peace and concord. The King's Councillors were no dreamers; they did not believe in the end of the war, neither did they desire it. But they intended to conduct it with the least possible risk and expenditure. There would always be folk enough to don the hauberk and go a-plundering they said to themselves; the taking and re-taking of towns must continue; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; to fight long one must fight gently; nine times out of ten more is gained by negotiations and treaties than by feats of prowess; truces must be concluded craftily and broken cautiously; some defeats must be expected, and some work must be left for the young. Such were the opinions of the good servants of King Charles.[1320]
[Footnote 1318: Falconbridge, in _Trial_, vol. iv, p. 451. _Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris_, p. 239. _Chronique de la Pucelle_, p. 291.
De Barante, _Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne_, vol. iii, p. 323.]
[Footnote 1319: Le P. Denifle, _La desolation des eglises_, introduction.]
[Footnote 1320: Those of Louis XI were of a like mind: ”One should fear risking a great battle if one be not constrained to it.” Philippe de Comynes, ed. Mdlle. Dupont, vol. i, p. 146.]
Certain among them wished the war to be carried on in Normandy.[1321]
The idea had occurred to them as early as the month of May, before the Loire campaign, and indeed there was much to be said for it. In Normandy they would cut the English tree at its root. It was quite possible that they might immediately recover a part of that province where the English had but few fighting men. In 1424 the Norman garrisons consisted of not more than four hundred lances and twelve hundred bowmen.[1322] Since then they had received but few reinforcements. The Regent was recruiting men everywhere and displaying marvellous activity, but he lacked money, and his soldiers were always deserting.[1323] In the conquered province, as soon as the _Coues_ came out of their strongholds they found themselves in the enemy's territory. From the borders of Brittany, Maine, Perche as far as Ponthieu and Picardy, on the banks of the Mayenne, Orne, the Dive, the Touque, the Eure, the Seine, the partisans of the various factions held the country, watching the roads, robbing, ravaging, and murdering.[1324] Everywhere the French would have found these brave fellows ready to espouse their cause; the peasants and the village priests would likewise have wished them well. But the campaign would involve long sieges of towns, strongly defended, albeit held by but small garrisons. Now the men-at-arms dreaded the delays of sieges, and the royal treasury was not sufficient for such costly undertakings.[1325]
Normandy was ruined, stripped of its crops, and robbed of its cattle.
Were the captains and their men to go into this famine-stricken land?
And why should the King reconquer so poor a province?
[Footnote 1321: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 12, 13. _Chronique de la Pucelle_, p. 300. Perceval de Cagny, p. 170. Jean Chartier, _Chronique_, p. 87. Morosini, vol. iii, p. 63, note 2.]