Part 95 (2/2)

Nevertheless, there were other bright and s.h.i.+ning lights of the Church, whom the Bishop of Beauvais neglected to summon. He consulted the two bishops of Coutances and Lisieux; he did not consult the senior bishop of Normandy, the Bishop of Avranches, Messire Jean de Saint-Avit, whom the chapter of the cathedral had charged with the duty of ordination throughout the diocese during the vacancy of the see of Rouen. But Messire Jean de Saint-Avit was considered and rightly considered to favour King Charles.[2169] On the other hand those English doctors and masters, residing at Rouen, who had been consulted in Segueut's trial, were not consulted in that of Jeanne.[2170] The doctors and masters of the University of Paris, the abbots of Normandy, the chapter of Rouen, held firmly to the Treaty of Troyes; they were as prejudiced as the English clerks against the Maid and the Dauphin Charles, and they were less suspected; it was all to the good.[2171]

[Footnote 2169: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 5, 6. De Beaurepaire, _Notes_, pp. 121-125. A. Sarrazin, _loc. cit._, pp. 308-310.]

[Footnote 2170: De Beaurepaire, _Recherches_, pp. 321 _et seq._]

[Footnote 2171: J. Quicherat, _Apercus nouveaux_, p. 101.]

On Tuesday, the 9th of January, my Lord of Beauvais summoned eight councillors to his house: the abbots of Fecamp and of Jumieges, the prior of Longueville, the canons Roussel, Venderes, Barbier, Coppequesne and Loiseleur.

”Before entering upon the prosecution of this woman,” he said to them, ”we have judged it good, maturely and fully to confer with men learned and skilled in law, human and divine, of whom, thank G.o.d, there be great number in this city of Rouen.”

The opinion of the doctors and masters was that information should be collected concerning the deeds and sayings publicly imputed to this woman.

The Lord Bishop informed them that already certain information had been obtained by his command, and that he had decided to order more to be collected, which would be ultimately presented to the Council.[2172]

[Footnote 2172: _Trial_, vol. i, pp. 5-8.]

It is certain that a tabellion[2173] of Andelot in Champagne, Nicolas Bailly, requisitioned by Messire Jean de Torcenay, Bailie of Chaumont for King Henry, went to Domremy, and with Gerard Pet.i.t, provost of Andelot, and divers mendicant monks, made inquiry touching Jeanne's life and reputation. The interrogators heard twelve or fifteen witnesses and among others Jean Hannequin[2174] of Greux and Jean Begot, with whom they lodged.[2175] We know from Nicolas Bailly himself that they gathered not a single fact derogatory to Jeanne. And if we may believe Jean Moreau, a citizen of Rouen, Maitre Nicolas, having brought my Lord of Beauvais the result of his researches, was treated as a wicked man and a traitor; and obtained no reward for his expenditure or his labour.[2176] This is possible, but it seems strange. It can in no wise be true, however, that neither at Vaucouleurs nor at Domremy, nor in the neighbouring villages was anything discovered against Jeanne. Quite on the contrary, numbers of accusations were collected against the inhabitants in general, who were addicted to evil practices, and in particular against Jeanne, who held intercourse with fairies,[2177] carried a mandrake in her bosom, and disobeyed her father and mother.[2178]

[Footnote 2173: A notary or secretary in France under the old monarchy (W.S.).]

[Footnote 2174: _Trial_, vol. ii, p. 463.]

[Footnote 2175: _Ibid._, p. 453.]

[Footnote 2176: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 192, 193.]

[Footnote 2177: _Ibid._, vol. i, pp. 105, 146, 234.]

[Footnote 2178: _Ibid._, pp. 208, 209, 213.]

Abundant information was forthcoming, not only from Lorraine and from Paris, but from the districts loyal to King Charles, from Lagny, Beauvais, Reims, and even from so far as Touraine and Berry;[2179]

which was information enough to burn ten heretics and twenty witches.

Devilries were discovered which filled the priests with horror: the finding of a lost cup and gloves, the exposure of an immoral priest, the sword of Saint Catherine, the restoration of a child to life.

There was also a report of a rash letter concerning the Pope and there were many other indications of witchcraft, heresy, and religious error.[2180] Such information was not to be included among the doc.u.ments of the trial.[2181] It was the custom of the Holy Inquisition to keep secret the evidence and even the names of the witnesses.[2182]

In this case the Bishop of Beauvais might have pleaded as an excuse for so doing the safety of the deponents, who might have suffered had he published information gathered in provinces subject to the Dauphin Charles. Even if their names were concealed, they would be identified by their evidence. For the purposes of the trial, Jeanne's own conversation in prison was the best source of information: she spoke much and without any of the reserve which prudence might have dictated.

[Footnote 2179: J. Quicherat, _Apercus nouveaux_, p. 117.]

[Footnote 2180: _Trial_, vol. i, pp. 245, 246.]

[Footnote 2181: _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 200.]

[Footnote 2182: De Beaurepaire, _Recherches_, _loc. cit._ J. Quicherat, _Apercus nouveaux_, pp. 122-124. L. Tanon, _Histoire des tribunaux de l'inquisition_, pp. 389-395.]

A painter, whose name is unknown, came to see her in her tower. He asked her aloud and before her guards what arms she bore, as if he wished to represent her with her escutcheon. In those days portraits were very seldom painted from life, except of persons of very high rank, and they were generally represented kneeling and with clasped hands in an att.i.tude of prayer. Though in Flanders and in Burgundy there may have been a few portraits bearing no signs of devotion, they were very rare. A portrait naturally suggested a person praying to G.o.d, to the Holy Virgin, or to some saint. Wherefore the idea of painting the Maid's picture doubtless must have met with the stern disapproval of her ecclesiastical judges. All the more so because they must have feared that the painter would represent this excommunicated woman in the guise of a saint, canonised by the Church, as the Armagnacs were wont to do.

A careful consideration of this incident inclines us to think that this man was no painter but a spy. Jeanne told him of the arms which the King had granted to her brothers: an azure s.h.i.+eld bearing a sword between two golden _fleurs de lis_. And our suspicion is confirmed when at the trial she is reproached with pomp and vanity for having caused her arms to be painted.[2183]

<script>